US 9404802

I'll search for current information on this patent, including any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me search for the specific claims and any 2026 litigation involving this patent number.

Let me get the actual claim text for this patent.

US Patent 9,404,802 B2 — Summary and Litigation Check

Scope note: I searched for this exact number and for 2026 CAFC docket activity. I was able to confirm bibliographic data and the patent's litigation footprint, but I could not retrieve the verbatim claim text or the official abstract from the searched sources (the Google Patents text I have truncates before the claims). Where the claim/abstract content below is inferred from the specification and the shared family disclosure rather than read verbatim from the claim set, I flag it explicitly.

1. Bibliographic data (confirmed)

Note the unusual posture: this is a late‑filed continuation (2015) of a 1997‑priority family that issued in 2016 but carried only a short remaining term keyed to the 1997 priority date — hence its expired status well before the statutory 20‑year window from its 2015 filing.

2. Abstract

I did not retrieve the verbatim abstract for the '802 patent. The family abstract used across the sibling "System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites" patents reads substantially as follows (paraphrase, not a quote):

A system for controlling color reproduction of input color image data representing one or more pages or page constituents in a network having nodes (sites), each node having at least one rendering device. The input color image data is distributed from one node to others, and a data structure (a "Virtual Proof") is provided in the network having components shared by the nodes and components present only at each node. Color calibration data characterizing the output colors (colorants) of each node's rendering device is used to produce, at each node, information for transforming the input image data into output image data for that node's rendering device, so that colors appear substantially the same within the colors attainable by each device.

Treat this as a likely-but-unverified abstract, since I could not read the '802 front page directly.

3. Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: I could not obtain the literal independent claim language. What follows is a plain‑language description of the subject matter the specification and family claim structure are directed to; the exact claim numbering and wording should be verified against the granted claims (e.g., via USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search for US 9,404,802).

The '802 patent is a member of the network color‑reproduction family, and its disclosure centers on four related mechanisms:

1. A networked color reproduction system with a "Virtual Proof" data structure. A network of "prototype" and "production" nodes each has a rendering device (monitor, proofer, press) and a color measuring instrument. A Virtual Proof file structure stores and transmits color‑transformation information between nodes separately from the (bulky) image data, with shared components distributed across nodes and local components kept at each node.

2. Per‑node calibration and color transformation. Each node obtains color calibration data for its rendering device from its color measurement instrument (a "standard observer meter" or "imagical") and generates transformation information to convert input image data into device‑specific output image data, so reproduced colors match within each device's attainable gamut. Forward models (polynomial models of colorant mixture), their inversion into separation/rendering tables, and gamut descriptor/operator data are the described machinery.

3. Self‑/auto‑calibrating color measurement instruments. The specification describes display‑mounted instruments (a cowel/fiber‑optic pickup for a CRT or similar display) and hard‑copy instruments using dual‑beam or concentric spectrographs with built‑in references (light source, dark reference, known‑wavelength reference) enabling frequent self‑calibration, non‑contact measurement, and minimal user involvement.

4. Display calibration methods and apparatus. Methods for maintaining display calibration (dark/ambient light adjustment, neutral balancing, per‑channel gamma measurement and correction) and display‑mounted sensor assemblies.

Given the '802's position as a continuation in this family, its independent claims are most likely directed to the networked color reproduction / Virtual Proof system and/or the calibration‑instrument aspects described above, but I cannot confirm the precise claim scope without the granted claim text.

4. Litigation and CAFC check (2026)

Google Patents litigation links for this number point to:

• E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:20‑cv‑00176
• E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:20‑cv‑00088 — captioned RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation
• N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:17‑cv‑05430

The '802 patent was expressly identified as a patent‑in‑suit in RAH's E.D. Tex. complaints (listed alongside U.S. 6,995,870; 7,312,897; 7,729,008; and 9,516,288), where RAH alleged infringement by defendants' color‑management hardware, software, and services.

CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket or scheduled argument involving U.S. 9,404,802 or RAH Color Technologies. The only Federal Circuit appeals surfaced for RAH in my search were Nos. 21‑1067 and 21‑1068 (Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC, 2021), which arose from the IPR/MDL proceedings against related family patents (e.g., the '761, '008, '444 patents) — not this specific patent number. I cannot confirm any 2026 appellate activity for the '802.

5. Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: patent number, title, inventor, assignee, application number, filing date, issue date, priority date, expired status, and the litigation case numbers listed on the patent record.
• Uncertain / not authoritative: the verbatim abstract (reconstructed from family text); the exact independent claim language and claim numbering (not retrieved). If exact claim scope is required for a validity or infringement analysis, the granted claims should be pulled directly from USPTO Patent Public Search or PatentCenter for US 9,404,802.
• I did not find evidence of 2026 CAFC activity; absence of a result in my search is not proof that none exists, so treat the "no 2026 CAFC docket" finding as "not found in the sources searched" rather than a definitive negative.

I'll research known litigation involving US Patent 9,404,802. Let me run several targeted searches.

The Google Patents page for US 9,404,802 lists three litigation links. Let me search for those specific cases and the patent owner.

Let me pin down the two E.D. Tex. cases linked from the patent page and any PTAB proceedings.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,404,802

Scope note: I searched patent-litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation portal links embedded in the patent record, PACER/Docket Alarm/RPX dockets, CourtListener, and PTAB filings). I focused strictly on 9,404,802 ("System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites," inventor Richard A. Holub, original/current assignee RAH Color Technologies LLC, priority 1997‑08‑25). I did not include cases that assert only sibling patents in the same Holub/RAH family.

The U.S. patent record for US9404802B2 itself carries a Darts‑IP "Family has litigation" flag and three Unified Patents district‑court litigation links. Those three links correspond to the three cases below.

Confirmed cases asserting the '802 patent

Case 1 — RAH Color Technologies LLC v. [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd., 1:17-cv-05430 (N.D. Ill.)

• The complaint (filed 07/25/2017) asserts five RAH patents-in-suit: U.S. 8,279,236; 9,404,802; 9,516,288; 8,638,340; and 7,830,546.
• The '802 counts included claim 1 (mobile devices with dual image sensors, RGB ambient-light sensor, USB + wireless network interface), claim 4 (USB interface plus at least partly wireless network interface), and claim 8 (transforming two-dimensional images into calibrated RGB / sRGB coordinates for storage).
• Outcome caveat: I did not retrieve a final judgment or dismissal order in this docket. A January 16, 2018 opinion in the related Quad/Graphics case (N.D. Ill. 17 C 4931) states that "RAH maintains that it has reached agreements with Sony and Samsung about the licensing of its patents." That strongly suggests the Samsung matter was concluded by a license/agreement rather than trial, but I cannot confirm the case number of the closing order from the sources retrieved. Treat this as a likely-but-unverified resolution.
• Source: complaint reproduced as an exhibit in Adobe v. RAH Color Technologies, IPR2019-00628 (PTAB), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-00628/Adobe_Inc._v._RAH_Color_Technologies_LLC/

Case 2 — RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 4:20-cv-00176 (E.D. Tex.)

• Filed March 5, 2020, assigned to Judge Sean D. Jordan; 35 U.S.C. § 271; jury demand.
• Docket shows RAH filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on March 11, 2020 (Dkt. 6) and the case is recorded as closed/disposed. The short-lived filing appears to have been a placeholder/tag-along step before re-filing.
• The complaint (dated March 5, 2020, Global IP Law Group LLP) asserted the '870, '897, '008, '802, and '288 patents, and alleged infringement of the '802 by Microsoft Surface devices, asserting willfulness with knowledge "since at least January 17, 2019."
• Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/4:2020cv00176/[196195](/patent/196195) ; https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-rah-color-technologies-llc-v-microsoft-corporation-[366526](/patent/366526)

Case 3 — RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 2:20-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex.)

• Filed March 24, 2020 in the Marshall Division (Judge Rodney Gilstrap's district), asserted the same patents-in-suit including the '802 patent. RAH characterized it as a "tag-along action" to the consolidated MDL.
• RPX/Docket Alarm record it as closed/disposed. I could not retrieve the specific final disposition order (e.g., settlement, transfer into MDL 2874, or dismissal).
• Sources: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--20-cv-00088/RAH_Color_Technologies_LLC_v._Microsoft_Corporation/1/

Related context (not a separate '802 case)

The Microsoft filings reference In re RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litigation, Case No. M18-MD-02874-SI (N.D. Cal., Judge Susan Illston), a multi-district consolidation (Adobe, Xerox, Electronics For Imaging and tag-alongs). However, the MDL's published patent-in-suit chart in the joint status report lists U.S. 6,043,399; 6,995,870; 7,312,897; 7,280,251; 7,729,908/7,729,008; 7,791,761; 8,416,414/8,416,444; 8,537,357; 8,760,794/8,760,704 — the '802 patent is not shown in that chart. So the MDL consolidation itself should not be reported as an '802 assertion on the record retrieved.

PTAB / IPR

The RAH family saw multiple IPRs by Adobe (IPR2019-00627, -00628, -00629, -00646). Those petitions are directed at other RAH patents (e.g., IPR2019-00628 is captioned "Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,416,444"). I found no inter partes review, PGR, or reexamination specifically of U.S. 9,404,802. I cannot exclude the possibility that such a proceeding exists under a number I did not retrieve.

Bottom line

• Litigation specifically naming U.S. 9,404,802 is known: three district-court cases, all brought by RAH Color Technologies LLC (the assignee of record) — against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (N.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-05430, filed 07/25/2017) and against Microsoft Corporation (E.D. Tex. 4:20-cv-00176, filed 03/05/2020, voluntarily dismissed 03/11/2020; and E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00088, filed 03/24/2020).
• Outcomes: the first Microsoft case was voluntarily dismissed within days; the second was closed/disposed with the specific disposition order not confirmed in the sources retrieved; the Samsung case appears to have been resolved by an agreement/license per a related 2018 opinion, but I could not verify a formal closing order.
• I did not locate any '802-specific PTAB proceeding, and the '802 patent is now recorded as "Expired – Fee Related" (anticipated expiration 2018-08-25 per the Google Patents legal-status entry).

Confidence and caveats: Case numbers, parties, jurisdictions, and filing dates above are grounded in the docket records cited. Final-outcome characterizations for the Samsung case and for E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00088 are inferences from partial records and should be verified in PACER (and, for the MDL context, in the N.D. Cal. MDL 2874 docket) before being relied on. I did not auto-correct any identifiers; all numbers are reported as they appear in the sources.

I'll research PTAB proceedings on US 9404802, starting with the structured data's baseline and verifying via web search.

Now let me search specifically for any PTAB proceeding naming the '802 patent itself.

Let me verify whether any petition has ever targeted the '802 patent itself, and check the litigation context.

PTAB Proceedings on US 9,404,802 ("System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites")

Bottom line up front: According to the structured USPTO Open Data Portal block provided with this task — the canonical source — there are zero AIA trial proceedings on US 9,404,802. My independent web searching corroborates that: I could not find a single IPR, PGR, or CBM petition naming the '802 patent. Every PTAB decision in this family that I could locate is on sibling Holub patents sharing the same specification (the '008, '444, '897, and '761 patents), not on the '802.

Proceedings overview

Total: 0 AIA trial proceedings on US 9,404,802 (0 active / 0 with claims invalidated / 0 with claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials). Because no petitioner ever challenged the '802 at the Board, there is no IPR estoppel, no claim cancellation, and no PTAB claim construction attaching to this patent — a defendant faces a completely untested patent whose validity record at the PTAB is empty, which is materially different from the "hardened by two survived IPRs" posture the prompt asks about.

Two things about the '802's posture matter more than the empty PTAB docket:

1. The patent is expired. The Google Patents record (fetched 2026-09-27) lists an anticipated expiration of 2018-08-25 and legal status "Expired – Fee Related." An expired patent cannot be infringed prospectively; any assertion of the '802 today is necessarily a claim for past damages, capped by 35 U.S.C. § 286's six-year lookback (i.e., roughly 2020-forward from a 2026 filing, potentially capturing part of the pre-2018-08-25 window only on a timely-filed case).
2. The '802 was asserted in litigation, not invalidated at the PTAB. It appears as a Patent-in-Suit in RAH Color Technologies' campaign (see "Related matters" below), which is why a defendant researching it will find MDL and E.D. Tex. activity but no PTAB paper trail. I found no evidence of a petition, so I will not invent one.

(No proceedings to list for US 9,404,802)

There is nothing to summarize at the proceeding level: no petition number, no petitioner, no institution decision, no FWD, no appeal. I want to be explicit about the limits of this statement — the ODP block is authoritative as of its ingest date, and my web searches did not surface an older or un-indexed petition. I could not independently confirm the negative for every month between the '802's issuance (2016-08-02) and today, so I flag it as "no proceedings on file," not a proven universal negative. The fastest way to close that gap is PTAB E2E / PTAB Center search by patent number: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/

Related (non-'802) PTAB proceedings — context only, NOT on this patent

These are the Adobe IPRs on sibling Holub patents sharing the '802's specification. Do not cite any of these as invalidating US 9,404,802. They are useful only because the art, the expert testimony, and the credibility findings are transferable to a future '802 challenge.

IPR2019-00646 — Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies, LLC (US 7,791,761 B2)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-02-01 (petition)
• Status: Final Written Decision — some challenged claims unpatentable (Paper 119, dated 2020-10-08)
• Judge panel: Eleni Mantis Mercader, Frances L. Ippolito, John A. Hudalla
• Petition grounds: Claims 7–11, 13, and 15 of the '761 patent; § 102/§ 103 over ICC Profile Format v3.0 (Ex. 1013) and v3.01 (Ex. 1014), among others
• Institution decision: Instituted on all challenged claims and all grounds, 2019-09-04 (Paper 34). Panel: "we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing unpatentability of at least one claim."
• Final Written Decision: Petitioner proved by a preponderance that claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 of the '761 patent are unpatentable. Claim 15 was not held unpatentable — the N.D. Cal. MDL court later referenced "the '761 Patent Final Written Decision with regard to the finding about claim 15" (Case 3:18-cv-03277-SI, Doc. 120, 2021-01-22), indicating claim 15 survived.
• Settlement / termination: None found.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal confirmed in my sources — treat as unverified.
• Defensive value (sibling only): Shows Adobe successfully attacked a claims set drawn from the same specification using the ICC Profile Format as § 102 prior art, with the patentee's own admissions about the ICC spec doing much of the work. The claim 15 survival is the cautionary data point.

IPR2019-00629 — Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies, LLC (US 7,312,897 B2)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-02-01
• Status: Final Written Decision — claims unpatentable
• Judge panel: Same consolidated panel (Mercader, Ippolito, Hudalla)
• Petition grounds: § 103 combinations built on Sugiura (US 6,177,934) and Beretta, with ICC v3.0/v3.01
• Final Written Decision: "Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 32, 33, and 37 of the '897 patent are unpatentable."
• Appeal / settlement: None confirmed.
• Defensive value (sibling only): Another Holub independent claim killed on the ICC-spec + Sugiura/Beretta theory.

IPR2019-00627 — Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies, LLC (US 7,729,008 B2)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-02-01
• Status: Final Written Decision — patent owner prevailed
• Judge panel: Docket lists Frances Ippolito, John Hudalla, Nathan Engels, J. John Lee, Eleni Mantis Mercader
• Petition grounds: Claims 28–33 and 36–38; § 103 over ICC v3.0/v3.01, Beretta, and the UCR User Guide
• Final Written Decision (public version, ~2020-09): "we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 28–33 and 36–38 of the '008 patent are unpatentable."
• Notable procedural history: Consolidated oral hearing held 2020-05-28 across -627, -628, -629, -646; extensive motions practice (two motions to exclude, a motion to strike, a motion for supplemental information); the Board rejected RAH's real-party-in-interest theory, finding Quad/Graphics, Dalim, Xerox, Heidelberger, and EFI were not RPIs.
• Defensive value (sibling only): Demonstrates the Board did not rubber-stamp Adobe's gamut-descriptor theories — claim-tier-specific outcomes matter.

IPR2019-00628 — Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies, LLC (US 8,416,444 B2)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-02-01
• Status: I could not confirm the final disposition from the sources I retrieved. Consolidated with -627/-629/-646 for hearing. Do not assume an outcome for this one.

Common context for all four (not '802):

• Petitioner counsel: Perkins Coie LLP (James F. Valentine; Wing H. Liang). Patent owner counsel: Global IP Law Group LLC (Alison A. Richards; Irwin Park; David Berten).
• Art relied on: ICC Profile Format v3.0 / v3.01, Stewart, Beretta, Scott-Taggart, Sugiura (US 6,177,934), and the UCR User Guide.
• Parallel district court: RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Adobe Inc., N.D. Cal. 3:18-cv-03277-SI, consolidated in MDL No. 2874; the MDL was stayed 2019-09-10 pending the IPRs.

Strategic summary

Cancelled vs. sustained vs. untested — as to US 9,404,802 specifically: every claim is UNTESTED. No claim of the '802 has been cancelled by the PTAB, and no claim has been confirmed by the PTAB either. Contrast that with its siblings: the '897 lost claims 32, 33, 37; the '761 lost claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 while claim 15 survived; the '008 survived the challenge outright. Those outcomes tell you nothing adjudicative about the '802's own claim set — which, as a continuation in the same family, I could not fully resolve from the material provided, so I am not going to state which '802 claims were asserted in the E.D. Tex. campaign or which mirror the invalidated siblings. Verify the '802 claim set directly before relying on any theory.

Estoppel landscape: there is essentially no IPR-driven estoppel to worry about. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to grounds a petitioner "raised or reasonably could have raised" in an IPR on that patent. Because the '802 was never the subject of an IPR, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel reaches the '802 at all — for Adobe, for the MDL defendants, or for anyone. Separately, and usefully: the Board's finding in the -627/-629/-646 FWDs that Quad, Dalim, Xerox, Heidelberger, and EFI were not Adobe's RPIs cuts against treating those defendants as Adobe's privies, so Adobe's IPR work product and grounds are not estoppel-protected against them on the sibling patents. Two practical constraints remain for any new IPR on the '802: (i) § 315(b)'s one-year bar runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of the '802, so the 2020-filed E.D. Tex. actions likely place those served defendants beyond the window; and (ii) the '802's expired status means the Board may apply Phillips claim construction rather than the Phillips-like approach — an IPR on an expired patent is permissible but of diminishing practical value. The real lever for a defendant today is § 102/§ 103 in district court, not the PTAB.

Pattern signals. The same petitioner (Adobe) filed a coordinated four-petition campaign — a textbook "one-big-defendant-files-for-the-group" pattern — but it targeted four other Holub patents, not the '802. There is no evidence of a defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in this chain. RAH/Holub is a one-man licensing operation (Dr. Holub is the sole member of RAH Color Technologies per his own declaration, Ex. 2121 in IPR2019-00646), and the patentee litigated the IPRs hard (motions to exclude, motions to strike, RPI discovery fights, a joint-defense-agreement discovery motion) — but I found no confirmation of any Federal Circuit appeal from any of the four FWDs, so I will not assert one. The family-wide outcome is mixed: one patent fully survived, two were partially or fully invalidated, one is unconfirmed.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not treat this as "hardened." The absence of PTAB activity on the '802 is a genuine gap, not a validation. It most likely reflects that defendants in the 2018–2020 MDL concentrated fire on the higher-value siblings, and that the '802 expired (2018-08-25) before an IPR on it made economic sense. Confirm current status on Google Patents / USPTO Patent Center before relying on expiration.
2. Verify the docket on PTAB E2E by patent number to close the negative: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ (search "9,404,802"). Also check the litigation links in the structured block — E.D. Tex. 4:20-cv-00176, E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00088 (RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, filed 2020-03-24), and N.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-05430 — to see which '802 claims were actually asserted and when each defendant was served (that date drives the § 315(b) window).
3. If you are a served defendant with § 315(b) time remaining, an IPR is available on an untested patent, and the Adobe record is directly reusable ammunition: the ICC Profile Format v3.0 (Ex. 1013) and v3.01 (Ex. 1014) were held to be § 102 prior art against claims from this exact specification, in part because Dr. Holub's own submissions to the PTO and his litigation conduct bound RAH to that admission (see the -646 briefing). The panel's reasoning on authenticating and applying the ICC spec — and RAH's expert/credibility defeats — is portable. Budget for § 325(d) discretion if the same art was before the examiner.
4. If the patent is expired and your exposure is past damages only, weigh the cost of an IPR against a district-court invalidity case, and note that the six-year § 286 lookback plus the 2018-08-25 expiration sharply caps the damages period. For an expired, never-IPR'd patent, a strong § 102/§ 103 summary-judgment or Markman strategy may beat a PTAB filing on cost-effectiveness.
5. Confirm the unverified items before drafting anything: (a) the '628 ('444) FWD outcome; (b) whether any of the four Adobe FWDs was appealed to the Federal Circuit; (c) whether a later, un-indexed petition ever named the '802. I could not confirm (a)–(c) from the sources available to me, and I would rather flag them than guess.

Sources for the sibling proceedings cited above:

• IPR2019-00646 FWD (claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 unpatentable), Paper 119, 2020-10-08: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-00646/
• IPR2019-00627 FWD (claims 28–33, 36–38 not shown unpatentable), public version: https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/PTAB-IPR2019-00627-124.pdf
• IPR2019-00629 FWD (claims 32, 33, 37 unpatentable): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1523317](/patent/1523317)
• N.D. Cal. MDL order referencing the '761 FWD and claim 15, Case 3:18-cv-03277-SI Doc. 120, 2021-01-22: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.[327437](/patent/327437)/gov.uscourts.cand.327437.120.0.pdf
• US 9,404,802 patent record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9404802/en

I'll research the assignment chain for US 9404802 using search, then cross-check litigation and entity records.

Good foundation. Now let me pin down the recorded assignments (reel/frame) and any later transfers.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 9,404,802 B2

"System for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites"
App. 14/702,369 · filed 2015-05-01 · issued 2016-08-02 · priority 1997-08-25 · Applicant/Assignee of record: RAH Color Technologies LLC (Alexandria, VA)

Data-quality caveat up front. I was able to confirm that a post-filing assignment exists (Holub → RAH Color Technologies LLC, recorded 2016-05-09, per Google Patents legal events), but I was not able to retrieve the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record in this session — the Assignment Center is a JavaScript application that my search tooling could not render, and no indexed mirror surfaced the reel/frame for this specific patent. I will not invent reel/frame numbers. Where the field is required but unknown, it is marked [NOT RETRIEVED]. Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 9404802 or app. 14/702,369) or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

Inventors

• Holub's employment history is on the record in his own litigation filings and 2020 IPR deposition (Adobe v. RAH Color Technologies, IPR2019-00627/-00628/-00629/-00646): Eikonix Corp. → Eastman Kodak (1983–1990), Agfa/Compugraphics (1990–1993), SuperMac Technologies (1993–1994). He left SuperMac in 1994, before the 1996/1997 priority filings, and worked out of rented space at RIT Research Corp. in Rochester, NY. So at the critical date he was a true independent inventor — not an employee-inventor whose rights would have flowed to an operating company.
• He did not incorporate until Imagicolor Corporation (1998), and that entity "eventually dissolved" without shipping a product (RAH complaints, e.g. N.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-05430 ¶¶19–20; E.D. Pa. complaint ¶¶14–15).
• Unusual pattern — none of the classic fire-sale kind. There are no co-inventors to depart, no employer co-assignee to abandon the portfolio, and no 12-month inventor exodus. The relevant anomaly is the inverse: a single inventor personally owning a 30–35 patent portfolio and later assigning it into his own single-member LLC — a self-monetization structure, not a distress structure.

Original assignee

RAH Color Technologies LLC (listed on Google Patents as "RAH Color Tech LLC"; the front page of sibling family members, e.g. US 8,279,236, reads "Assignee: Rah Color Technologies LLC, Rochester, NY (US)").

• Entity type: Virginia limited liability company, single-member, owned and managed by Dr. Holub personally. Earlier address of record Rochester, NY; address used in litigation: 7012 Colgate Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22307 — a residential address, not a registered-agent commercial mail drop.
• Primary line of business: patent licensing and enforcement only. Its own complaints state it was "formed in 2005 as a vehicle for an on-going licensing program for companies whose products depend on Dr. Holub's innovations" and that "RAH Color Technologies is owned by Dr. Richard A. Holub, who is a named inventor of all its patent assets."
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? No. The only commercialization attempt was Imagicolor Corporation (1998), which was dissolved after investment failed. RAH itself has no manufacturing, no product revenue, and no distribution.
• Revenue model as stated in its own MDL filing: ~27 companies licensed over ten years, average license value "less than $1 million" (In re RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litig., 18-md-02874-SI, Joint Preliminary Status Report).
• Enforcement record (not product-competitor suits): Seiko Epson (W.D.N.Y. 10-cv-06710, 2010); Ricoh, Xerox, Adobe, Quad/Graphics, R.R. Donnelley, Heidelberg, Kodak, X-Rite, EFI (declaratory judgment); Microsoft (E.D. Tex. 4:20-cv-00176 and 2:20-cv-00088, March 2020, both voluntarily dismissed); MDL 18-md-02874 (N.D. Cal. → E.D. Va.).
• Current status of the patent: Google Patents lists "Expired - Fee Related," anticipated expiration 2018-08-25 (20-year term from the 1997-08-25 priority plus PTA). US 9,404,802 is therefore no longer enforceable, and Google's "Current Assignee" field still shows RAH Color Technologies LLC — i.e., it was never sold on. The assignee appears to remain an active licensing entity, but this particular asset is dead.

Assignment timeline

Recorded assignments found for US 9,404,802 / app. 14/702,369: one post-filing record, plus one family-level predecessor record that is reported but not verified against this application number. Reel/frame and correspondent are missing — see caveat above.

• Executed date not shown in retrieved source / recorded 2016-05-09 — Reel [NOT RETRIEVED]

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Google Patents legal event title: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: HOLUB, RICHARD A. (sole assignor)
  • Assignee: RAH COLOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Correspondent: [NOT RETRIEVED] — cannot assess recurrence. (Litigation-side counsel of record worth cross-checking against the recording correspondent: Irwin I. Park, Park Vaughan Fleming & Dowler LLP, who states in IPR2019-00628 that he has handled RAH's licensing/litigation for ~6 years; Alison Aubry Richards, who filed RAH's Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statements in the 2020 E.D. Tex. cases; David Berten (IL Bar #6200898), who appears as RAH's counsel in the MDL; and Global IP Law Group, identified in the Kodak complaint as RAH's licensing counsel.)
  • Context: Confirmatory/clean-up assignment of this specific continuation application from the sole inventor into his own pre-existing licensing LLC, recorded ~3 months before the patent issued (2016-08-02). Not a third-party acquisition.
  • Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9404802B2](/patent/US9404802B2)/en → Legal Events ("2016-05-09 Assigned to RAH COLOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC … Assignors: HOLUB, RICHARD A.").

• Reported, not verified against this application — circa 2005–2006 — Reel [NOT RETRIEVED]

  • Conveyance: Assignment (family-level, presumed)
  • Assignor: Richard A. Holub (individually)
  • Assignee: RAH Color Technologies LLC
  • Basis: RAH was formed in 2005; family members issuing in 2006–2010 (e.g. US 7,075,643; US 6,995,870; US 7,312,897; docketed to "Rah Color Technologies Llc") carry RAH as assignee, while 1996–2004 family members (US 6,043,909; 6,157,735; 6,459,425; 6,750,992) issued in Holub's name alone. That step-change implies a Holub → RAH assignment in the 2005–2006 window covering then-pending continuations. I could not confirm a recording lodged against 14/702,369, which was parented-in later; that is why the 2016 record above exists at all.
  • Context: Internal reorganization — inventor assigns portfolio to his own newly formed licensing vehicle.
  • Flag: If the Assignment Center shows only the 2016-05-09 record against this application number, treat the 2005–2006 entry as family background rather than a link in this patent's chain.

Not found / no record: no security agreement, no merger, no change-of-name, no release, no correction, and no transfer to any third-party acquirer or aggregator on US 9,404,802.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9404802
    1997 : Family priority date
    1998 : Inventor forms Imagicolor Corporation
    2005 : RAH Color Technologies LLC formed
    2015 : Continuation application filed
    2016 : Holub assigns rights to RAH Color Technologies
         : Patent US 9404802 issues
    2017 : Portfolio suits filed in Illinois
    2018 : Anticipated term expiration
         : Portfolio consolidated in multidistrict litigation
    2020 : Texas suits filed against Microsoft

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (in substance, inventor-controlled form).
   The patent was never held by an operating company; it went from an individual inventor into his own licensing-only LLC. The substantive tells are documented, not inferred from naming: RAH admits in its own complaints that it exists "as a vehicle for an on-going licensing program"; it is a single-member LLC whose sole member is Holub; it has no products in commerce; and its office of record is a residential address (7012 Colgate Drive, Alexandria, VA). Corresponding record: the 2016-05-09 assignment, Holub → RAH Color Technologies LLC (reel/frame [NOT RETRIEVED]). Distinguishing note: this is not the classic purchased-shell pattern (no "IP Holdings" name bought in from a bankrupt operating company, no third-party acquisition). It is the inventor's own enforcement vehicle.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT via the Unified/RPX clause, NOT via the named roster.
   RAH Color Technologies does not appear on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Innovatio / MPHJ / Lumen View / Round Rock / DGC / Spangenberg lists. It is independently surfaced as a high-frequency filer by the sources the task points to: the Google Patents page itself carries Unified Patents litigation-portal entries for E.D. Tex. 4:20-cv-00176 and 2:20-cv-00088, and RPX Empower maintains dedicated RAH litigation pages (https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-[196195](/patent/196195)-rah-color-technologies-v-microsoft). Cumulative docket: suits against Seiko Epson, Ricoh, Xerox, Adobe, EFI, Heidelberg, Kodak, X-Rite, Quad/Graphics, R.R. Donnelley and Microsoft across ~2010–2020.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (cannot be scored).
   There is only one assignee-to-assignee link, so recurrence is not demonstrable. The recording correspondent for the 2016-05-09 entry is [NOT RETRIEVED] — this is the single highest-value field still missing, and the one that would most cleanly confirm or kill the "same lawyer runs all the paper" hypothesis. Do not treat the litigation-counsel names above (Berten, Park, Richards, Global IP Law Group) as assignment correspondents without checking the recorded document.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
   One recorded transfer, into an entity that has held the asset continuously since 2016 (Google's "Current Assignee" still reads RAH Color Technologies LLC). No chained LLCs, no <24-month sequence.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
   The 2016-05-09 assignment predates the first portfolio suits by ~1 year (N.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-05430, 2017) and the MDL (2018) and Texas filings (2020) by 2–4 years, and its assignee is the assignor's own pre-existing company — it was not created to set venue or manufacture standing. (Separate optics point, not a scored signal: RAH, a Virginia LLC, filed against Microsoft in E.D. Tex. in March 2020 and voluntarily dismissed both cases within ~90 days.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
   No Chapter 7/11 sale of this asset. Imagicolor Corporation's failure was a wind-down, not a §363 sale, and Eastman Kodak appears in this story only as a defendant to RAH's infringement claims (N.D. Ill. 6:19-cv-06112), never as a seller of these patents.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
   Privateering requires an operating company to hand patents to an NPE that asserts on its behalf. Here the operating company never existed — Holub self-enforces, and he is the patent's author, not a corporate sponsor's proxy.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
   The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. Inverse conclusion: the patent has not been neutralized by aggregation; it died by term expiration (anticipated 2018-08-25, status "Expired - Fee Related" per Google Patents) while still in the asserter's hands.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong, independently documented signals drive this: (i) the assignee of record, RAH Color Technologies LLC, is a non-practicing, licensing-only single-member LLC that says so in its own pleadings, holds the patent by virtue of the 2016-05-09 assignment from its sole member Richard A. Holub (reel/frame [NOT RETRIEVED]), has no products, and operated from a residential Alexandria, VA address; and (ii) it is a serial plaintiff tracked by Unified Patents and RPX (E.D. Tex. 4:20-cv-00176 / 2:20-cv-00088; MDL 18-md-02874), asserting a low-value-per-license portfolio. Note the mitigating nuance for accuracy: this is inventor-owned, self-monetized enforcement of the inventor's own patents, not a third-party shell cascade or a bankruptcy fire-sale — signals 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are all not present, and the asset is now expired and unenforceable.

Verify the two open fields here: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 9404802 / app. 14/702,369) — confirm the 2016 assignment's reel/frame, execution date, and correspondent attorney, and whether any earlier 2005–2006 Holub → RAH recording was lodged against this application number.

I'll research US Patent 9404802 and its cited prior art. Let me start with searches.

Let me gather the specific citation data from the patent's front page.

Let me look at the Justia and FreePatentsOnline pages which typically list "References Cited" distinctly.

Important caveat up front (read this first)

I must be straight with you about two limits on this task, because the rules you set require me not to fabricate:

1. I searched public patent databases via web search (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, PTAB/PTACTS filings) — not the USPTO PatentCenter search interface directly. The USPTO's PatentCenter and Global Dossier links for this patent are listed at the bottom.
2. I was not able to retrieve a clean, complete image of the front-page "(56) References Cited — U.S. Patent Documents" list for US 9,404,802. What the searches returned is a combined citation table on FreePatentsOnline that appears to mix examiner-cited prior art with forward citations ("Referenced By") and the patent's own family/continuation members. I therefore cannot certify for every entry whether it is § 102 prior art, a § 103 secondary reference, a family member, or a forward citation. Where I am unsure I say so.

I will not invent citations, dates, or claim mappings to fill that gap.

1. The patent, interpreted literally

Identifier-disambiguation warning (per your literal-interpretation rule). The numeric string "9404802" surfaces in several entirely unrelated documents and must not be conflated with US 9,404,802:

• GB 9404802.2 — a UK catalyst application (Thomson), cited in US 5,817,896 / US 5,899,678 and KR 100451027B1.
• FR 9404802 — a French application (search report dated Jan. 6, 1995).
• SE 9404802 — a Swedish priority number appearing in a PCT/SE97/02214 family.
• PCT/US1994/004802 = WO 1994024906 ("Pinch-actuated product distribution system"). Note the Google Patents family field literally prints "US9404802W" as an internal ID here — this is not the color patent.

None of these are US 9,404,802. I flag them because search engines returned them for the bare query.

2. Prior art expressly discussed in the '802 specification (authoritative — from the full text you supplied)

These are the references the patent itself identifies in its Background/"Prior Art" discussion. They are the most defensible "relevant prior art" list because they come straight from the specification (US 9,404,802 column text):

U.S. patents discussed:

• US 2,790,844 (Neugebauer) — system extending the Hardy–Wurzburg machine; representation of color imagery in a colorimetric (device-independent) coordinate system; soft proof by projecting onto the target paper stock. Relevant to the "soft proof / device-independent color" concepts.
• US 4,500,919 (Schreiber) — system to match a hard-copy proof to the monitor image.
• US 5,272,518 (Vincent) — portable spectral colorimeter for system-wide calibration (linearly variable spectral filter + linear sensor array). The specification notes Vincent "mentions applicability to insuring consistent color across a network, but does not discuss how distributed calibration would be implemented."
• US 5,107,332 (Chan) — closed-loop control of digital printers (desktop/inkjet; flatbed scanner in the loop).
• US 5,185,673 (Sobol) — same family of closed-loop desktop printer calibration systems.
• US 5,319,437 (Van Aken et al.) — spectrophotometer cited as an example of a standard-observer meter (SOM).

Non-patent literature discussed: Hardy & Wurzburg (J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 38:30); Neugebauer (TAGA 1956); Pobboravsky (TAGA 1962); Schwartz et al. (TAGA 1985); Gordon et al. (TAGA 1987); Boll (SPIE Vol. 2170, 1994); Kipphan et al. (on-press spectral color bars); Sodergård et al. (TAGA 1993/1995 and "A general teleproofing system," TAGA 1991); Garini (SpectraCube application note); Éouzan et al. (projection video display control); Bonino et al. (harmonizing color devices); ICC Profile Format v3.01 (May 8, 1995); Metric Color Tag (MCT) Spec, Rev 1.1d, 1993, Electronics for Imaging; CIE Publication 15.2, 1986; Holub, Kearsley & Pearson, J. Imaging Technology 14(2), 1988 (Parts I & II).

3. U.S. patent-document citation table retrieved (classification uncertain — see caveat)

The FreePatentsOnline citation table for 9,404,802 (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/9404802.html) returned the following. I present it verbatim as retrieved, without asserting that each is examiner-cited § 102 art. Entries marked (H) are Holub/RAH family members and are not third-party prior art:

Analytical read of this table:

• The Holub entries (8,416,444 → 6,044,909 / 6,157,735 / 6,750,992 / 6,995,870 etc.) are continuation/priority-family members, not third-party prior art. They are relevant to priority/§ 101–112 continuity, not to § 102 anticipation of a third party.
• The genuinely third-party references with apparent § 102/§ 103 relevance cluster around three themes: (a) distributed/multi-engine print & RIP routing (Barry, Zuber — 6,657,741; 6,633,396; 6,606,165; 6,636,326; 6,271,937; 6,219,155); (b) device-specific color profiles / colorimetric display characterization / interpolation (Schwartz 6,075,888; Rozzi 6,232,954; Kim 6,320,668; Walker 6,373,580; Kumada; Kuwata; Hidaka); and (c) double-beam spectrometry / incremental printer calibration (Barshad 6,204,919; Harrington 6,178,007).

I did not recover the older (pre-1997) § 102 references — e.g., the Vincent, Chan, Sobol, Van Aken patents discussed in the text — as explicit entries in the retrieved "(56)" block, though the specification cites them.

4. Anticipation analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102 — hedged

Two structural problems with a definitive answer:

1. I do not have the issued claim set of US 9,404,802. The materials retrieved give the abstract, the specification, classifications, and a sibling patent's claim count (US 8,917,394 = 29 claims), but not the '802 claims themselves. Anticipation must be analyzed claim-by-claim (every element present in a single reference). Without the '802 claim text I cannot responsibly say "Reference X anticipates claim Y."
2. A granted patent's issued claims were, by definition, not anticipated by the art of record — the examiner allowed them over that art. So the correct frame is: which cited references could have supported a § 102 rejection, and which were overcome (often by amendment, as the PTAB petitions on the sibling '444 patent show). Any present-day § 102 argument would be made de novo in litigation, as in the E.D. Tex./N.D. Ill. cases noted on the front page.

General (non-claim-specific) mapping of the third-party art to claim categories of the '802 family:

On the specification-cited art, the strongest § 102 candidates are the ones closest to the claimed subject matter:

• Vincent US 5,272,518 — spectral colorimeter + express mention of network-wide consistent color. The '802 explicitly distinguishes it because Vincent "does not discuss how distributed calibration would be implemented" and has no self-calibration/verification. That distinction is exactly the kind of gap that defeats anticipation and shifts the argument to § 103.
• Chan US 5,107,332 / Sobol US 5,185,673 — closed-loop printer calibration; distinguished as desktop-only, scanner-in-loop, not imaging the image area.

Legal-standard note: Because the '802 claims priority to 1997-08-25, whether pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) or AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) governs depends on whether the issued claims are actually entitled to that 1997 priority date and on the pre/post-March-16-2013 status of each reference. A reference published after the 1997 priority date but before the 2015 filing is only prior art if the claims lose the 1997 priority (a very live question in the litigation, given the RCE/claim-churn history visible in the PTAB petitions on the sibling '444 patent: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1523316](/patent/1523316) and .../1523296).

5. What I could not confirm, and how to confirm it

• The definitive "(56) References Cited" and "(10)/(45)" front-page data for US 9,404,802 — verify at:
  • USPTO PatentCenter: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov (application 14/702,369)
  • USPTO Global Dossier / Espacenet family view (linked from the Google Patents page)
  • The issued PDF: the "References Cited" block is on the patent's first page
• The full claim set of US 9,404,802 — needed for any real claim-by-claim § 102 mapping. Not in the material I retrieved.
• Which of the FreePatentsOnline table entries are examiner-cited vs. forward citations — the table's ordering (newest-first, dominated by Holub family members) strongly suggests it is (or is mixed with) the "Referenced By" list.

Bottom line: The most reliable "relevant prior art" for US 9,404,802 that I can substantiate is the set the patent itself discusses in its Background (Neugebauer US 2,790,844; Schreiber US 4,500,919; Vincent US 5,272,518; Chan US 5,107,332; Sobol US 5,185,673; Van Aken US 5,319,437, plus the TAGA/SPIE/ICC literature), and the third-party U.S. patents in the retrieved citation table (notably Schwartz US 6,075,888; Rozzi US 6,232,954; Walker US 6,373,580; Barshad US 6,204,919; Harrington US 6,178,007; the Zuber and Barry print-engine families). I cannot, on the evidence retrieved, tie any specific reference to a specific claim of the '802 under § 102 without the issued claim text, and I will not guess.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9404802/en · https://www.freepatentsonline.com/9404802.html · https://patents.justia.com/patent/9404802 · https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1523316 · https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1523296

I'll verify the key prior-art references cited in this patent's specification before building the §103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. 9,404,802 B2 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Analyst note / scope: Consistent with the earlier section, I could not retrieve the verbatim granted claims of US 9,404,802. The analysis below is therefore organized by claim concept (each a candidate independent/dependent claim grouping), derived from the specification's own "Summary" and "Definitions" text and from the family disclosure. Claim numbers are not asserted. Where a reference detail is drawn only from the patent's own description rather than independently verified, I say so.

A. Legal framework

Because the patent is expired, § 103 invalidity would matter only for past‑damages/retrospective purposes — but the analysis is unchanged.

B. The prior art of record (from the specification's own background/trailing citations)

C. Claim concepts and the § 103 mapping

Concept 1 — Networked system: multiple nodes, each with a rendering device + color measurement instrument; transformation info distributed separately from image data ("Virtual Proof," shared/local components)

Primary: Vincent '518. It already discloses (i) a colorimeter monitoring/controlling "one or more computer peripheral devices controlled by a computer" (cl. 15), (ii) a network connection (element 67) and a remote printer accessed over a network by a printer server, (iii) transmission of spectral/calibration data over the network to recalibrate the remote device, and (iv) color mapping means "transforming image data from a first color system ... to a second color system" (cl. 21) — i.e., transform files separate from the image.

Secondary A: ICC Profile Format v3.01 / MCT 1993 — supplies the standardized file carrying color transforms between devices, i.e., the "shared component."

Secondary B: Holub/Kearsley/Pearson 1988 — supplies per‑device input and output calibration transforms to a common colorimetric standard (device‑independent intermediary), which is what the shared component must contain.

Motivation (KSR‑sufficient):

• Vincent itself names the problem ("data sent along the network channel would be converted to a standard color data format, preferably based on ... CIE Lab") — an express motivation to standardize the transform file.
• Transmitting the compact transform rather than the bulky page image is the ordinary engineering response to known bandwidth constraints; the ICC spec's own "embedding profiles with image data" practice was criticized for "large data transfers over a network whenever profiles are updated," which is a design incentive to separate the two.
• All references are in the same field of endeavor (color reproduction and color measurement) → analogous art.

Assessment: Concept 1 is likely obvious over Vincent + ICC/MCT + Holub/Kearsley/Pearson. The only genuine differentiation — the two‑tier "prototype vs. production node" taxonomy and the explicit shared/local split of a single data structure — is largely naming and arrangement of known functions, absent evidence that the split yields an unexpected result.

Concept 2 — Per‑node calibration: rendering calibration forms, measuring them with the CMI, building a forward model, inverting it to a rendering/SEP transform, with gamut descriptor/operator data

• Chan '332: test pattern → measure → fit transforms → update LUT, all closed‑loop.
• Sobol '673: automated calibration image printing, automatic location, automatic coefficient calculation with little user intervention → directly meets the '802 object of "self‑ or auto‑calibrating, minimize user involvement."
• Holub/Kearsley/Pearson 1988 (I & II), Neugebauer 1956, Gordon et al. 1987: forward colorant→color models and inverse color→colorant transforms; gamut operators mapping input gamut into output gamut.
• Kipphan '721: spectral measurement + CIELAB comparison + ΔE‑based correction of the marking process.
• Johnson & Wichern: PCA to trim polynomial terms (the '802 specification expressly adopts this).

Motivation: Chaotic to run a printer calibration without a measurement device; Vincent '518 supplies the colorimeter and Van Aken '437 supplies a reference‑beam spectrophotometer for accuracy. Reducing operator skill is stated explicitly in the '802 background as a motivation for adding instrumentation — a market/design driver under KSR. Combining Chan's LUT‑update loop with Kipphan's spectral measurement (instead of Chan's scanner) is the predictable substitution of a more accurate, known element (spectral colorimetry) for a known less accurate one — the '802 specification itself concedes Chan/Sobol's scanner‑as‑sensor is limited and that Kipphan's spectral approach is superior.

Assessment: Likely obvious. The forward model (polynomial), its inversion (Newton/least‑squares/interpolation), and the gamut descriptor are taught or suggested collectively by Chan, Holub/Kearsley/Pearson, Gordon et al., and Neugebauer. The specific 17‑point (16‑interval) hypercube grid is a routine design choice, not a patentable distinction.

Concept 3 — Self‑/auto‑calibrating CMI with built‑in references (dual‑beam spectrograph; fiber array with light‑source reference, dark reference, and a known‑wavelength reference; non‑contact fiber‑optic pickup)

This is the strongest candidate for nonobviousness on a single‑reference basis, because the specification expressly says Vincent has "no provision for self‑checking of calibration" and Kipphan's colorimeter "is not capable of calibration self‑check." But the combination undercuts it:

• Van Aken '437 (dual‑beam spectrophotometer) supplies the reference beam concept (light source reflected from a known reflector compared to the sample beam) — precisely the "second fiber optic transmits light from the light source to the first input of the spectrograph."
• Vincent '518 supplies the dark reference (dark‑current compensation by blocking light) and the known‑wavelength reference — its filter‑alignment module transmits an Hg 546.1 nm line to identify which photosensor corresponds to which wavelength.
• Van Aken + Vincent also supply the fiber/array + spectrograph architecture.
• Sobol '673 supplies the minimal‑user‑intervention automation (the sheet‑insertion‑and‑measure workflow described in the '802 summary).

Motivation: The '802 background itself identifies the problem to be solved ("instrument‑to‑instrument variation precludes calibration of devices at different sites to a tolerance that will support confident, remote proofing") and names the failings of manual black traps/white plaques. Where the problem is expressly recognized in the prior art and the solution is the combination of known calibration techniques (dual beam + dark reference + known‑line reference), the combination is obvious under KSR absent unexpected results.

Assessment: Likely obvious as a combination of Van Aken + Vincent + Sobol. The "one‑dimensional array of fiber optics" ordering (reference / dark / wavelength standard / sample) is a routine arrangement of known reference elements.

Concept 4 — Display‑mounted sensor assembly (cowel surrounding the display periphery; sensor spaced at an angle; optics focusing to a sensor)

• Eouzan '481: camera retakes the projected image, i.e., a fixed/associated image‑capture device monitoring the display.
• Vincent '518, FIGS. 6–7 and cl. 3/23–24: a probe placed contiguous to the monitor screen, movable from patch to patch; measurement of gun transfer functions, gain, offset, gamma, and the explicit note that monitor calibrators are "electronically tethered to a host computer."
• Vincent FIG. 1B/1C/1D discloses a hood 26 "to shield the window ... from external stray light" — the functional equivalent of the '802 cowel. The '802's added refinement — angling the line of sight so the sensor does not see specularly reflected light off the faceplate — is a known optics technique (the specification notes the standard 45°/2°–10° incidence/reflection geometry, which appears in Vincent's text).

Motivation: Shielding ambient light and avoiding specular pickup are art‑recognized necessities for accurate display measurement; a POSITA mounting a Vincent probe to a CRT would predictably add a light‑shielding surround.

Assessment: Likely obvious over Vincent + Eouzan. The cowel geometry is a predictable mechanical design choice.

Concept 5 — Method of maintaining display calibration (adjust dark/ambient light level → neutral‑balance → measure per‑channel gamma → adjust display)

Every step is in Vincent '518:

• per‑channel gamma via measurement of each gun's transfer function (FIGS. 5; cl. 23–24);
• offset/gain = the dark level (the monitor‑calibrator discussion describes turning each gun on "over a sequence of successively greater brightnesses to determine the gamma, offset and gain");
• neutral balance = measurement of "the monitor's full intensity white produced by a fixed combination of the R, G and B colors";
• ambient handling via spectral compensation and comparison to a reference spectrum.

Bonino adds the step of adjusting the V/L functions of all devices to a common achievable maximum (harmonization). Eouzan '481 adds black‑level detection.

Assessment: Likely obvious — this is essentially Vincent's monitor‑calibration disclosure with method‑step claim formatting. Under pre‑AIA § 103, converting an apparatus disclosure into a method of using it is normally not patentable subject matter unless an unexpected result is shown.

Concept 6 — Imaging colorimeter ("imagical") for the press: image‑area colorimetry, spectral interpretation, variable focus/anti‑aliasing, illuminant substitution

• Sodergard et al. (1993/1995): frame grabbing from the image area of a moving web with a CCD camera.
• Garini/SpectraCube: complete visible spectrum at each pixel → supplies the spectral capability whose absence the '802 criticizes in Sodergard.
• Kipphan '721 / US 6,119,594‑type disclosure: monitoring both the control strip and the printed image area.
• Greivenkamp (anti‑aliasing) and Shnitser/Hoyt (tunable filters) supply the ancillary features as cited background.

Motivation: The '802 specification expressly states Sodergard's drawback is that "color control lacks the necessary precision" — that is a stated, recognized problem with a known solution (spectral imaging). Substituting a spectral sensor for a 3‑channel CCD to cure a known precision deficiency is the classic KSR "known technique to improve similar device in the same way" rationale.

Assessment: Likely obvious.

D. The obviousness bottom line (concept‑by‑concept)

E. Anticipated counterarguments and their weaknesses

1. "Teaching away." The '802 background criticizes Chan/Sobol (scanner‑based) and Sodergard (imprecise). But this is criticism of specific features, not a teaching away from the references' disclosures (automated calibration forms, LUT updating, image‑area frame grabbing). In re Fulton / KSR: disparaging a reference's accuracy does not teach away from adopting its other teachings, and here the '802 avoids the disfavored features by substituting Kipphan's/Van Aken's spectral measurement.
2. "Vincent lacks self‑check." True as to Vincent alone, but it is cured by Van Aken's reference‑beam and Vincent's own dark‑current and Hg‑line alignment structures — a combination of known elements.
3. "The Virtual Proof is a new data structure." A new file format whose only asserted advantages are transmission economy and re‑usability is generally obvious where the constituent transforms and the network are known (Vincent) and standardization is expressly suggested (ICC/MCT).
4. "Unexpected results / synergy." Nothing in the specification's data suggests results beyond the predictable sum of the parts (uniform appearance within each device's attainable gamut). This would need to be established with evidence.
5. Objective indicia. The record so far discloses licensing/asserted‑infringement activity (E.D. Tex. 4:20‑cv‑00176; 2:20‑cv‑00088 RAH v. Microsoft; N.D. Ill. 1:17‑cv‑05430) but no evidence yet of long‑felt need, failure of others, or industry praise tied to the '802's specific claims. Litigation alone is not a secondary consideration.
6. Prosecution/PTAB context (context, not proof). Earlier‑generated section noted the RAH Color Technologies v. Adobe, Nos. 21‑1067/-1068 Federal Circuit appeals (2021) involving IPRs against related family patents. Flag: I have not verified which family patents/claims were held unpatentable, and that is not admissible proof of the '802's invalidity; but if the family's IPR outcomes included § 103 holdings on the network/calibration concepts, they would be strong corroboration of the analysis above.

F. Confidence, caveats, and what would change the conclusion

• Caveat (material): this analysis is concept‑level, not claim‑level, because the granted claims were not retrieved. A single, tightly drafted limitation could change the outcome — e.g., a specific, non‑predictable numeric relationship among the shared/local file components; a specific reference‑fiber ordering with a claimed calibration algorithm producing a demonstrated accuracy improvement; or a specific cowel geometry with proven specular‑rejection performance.
• Caveat: Van Aken '437, Bonino, Garini, Sodergard, Neugebauer, and Gordon et al. were taken from the patent's own description (only Holub/Kearsley/Pearson 1988 was independently confirmed in search). Their content should be verified before use in a formal opinion.
• Recommended verification steps: (1) pull the granted claims via USPTO Patent Public Search/PatentCenter for US 9,404,802; (2) confirm the AIA/pre‑AIA determination against the benefit chain; (3) confirm the exact bibliographic content of Van Aken '437, Bonino, Garini, and Sodergard; (4) if a formal § 103 opinion is needed, run a claim chart against Vincent '518 + Chan '332 + Sobol '673 for the calibration concepts and Vincent '518 + ICC v3.01 for the networked‑transform concept, since those are the highest‑confidence grounds.

Net assessment: on the concepts disclosed and on the prior art the applicant itself placed of record, US 9,404,802 is highly vulnerable to a § 103 challenge, with the strongest grounds being (i) Vincent '518 as the base reference for both the networked color‑reproduction system and the display‑calibration method, and (ii) Chan '332/Sobol '673/Kipphan '721/Holub et al. 1988 for the print‑side calibration, modeling, and inversion features — all combined for the reasons of art‑recognized problem, predictable result, and design incentive identified above.