US 9541434

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me check specifically for litigation, PTAB, or appellate activity involving this patent.

Search coverage and limits (read first)

I ran targeted web searches for the exact identifier 9541434 / US 9,541,434 B2, plus litigation, PTAB, and Federal Circuit queries. Two caveats I must state plainly:

• I do not have direct credentialed access to the USPTO PatentCenter, PTAB (P-TACTS), or CAFC docket systems; my searches surface indexed copies of those records. So my litigation/docket statement below is "nothing found," not "definitively nothing exists."
• I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity, no PTAB proceeding, and no district court litigation naming US 9,541,434. Search hits for "the '434 patent" referred to unrelated patents (e.g., a smoke-detector patent, U.S. Pat. No. 5,987,434, and litigation involving 9,545,434 / 9,539,310 — different numbers that must not be conflated with 9,541,434).

---

US 9,541,434 B2 — Sensor system

Inventor-name note (interpreted literally, not auto-corrected): the front-matter listing and the 2014 assignment record disagree on the third inventor's first name — "Stephen Setescak" (front matter/Google Patents) vs. "Stephan SETESCAK" (assignment reel 033475/0697). Both spellings are reported as found.

Abstract (verbatim)

A sensor system has at least one first sensor element for measuring a first physical variable and a second sensor element for measuring a second physical variable. The first sensor element is part of an application-specific integrated circuit which, in addition to the first sensor element, has further electronic circuits. The second sensor element is arranged separately and outside the application-specific integrated circuit. The second sensor element is electrically connected to the application-specific integrated circuit via a first connection point. The application-specific integrated circuit is configurable via the first connection point and the measurement signal from the second sensor element can be read out via the first connection point.

Independent claim 1 — plain language

A sensor system with two main parts:

1. An application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC, ref. 4) that contains (a) at least one air mass flow sensor element (2) for measuring air mass flow and (b) further electronic circuits (5), which include electronic memory elements (16).
2. A temperature sensor element (3) for measuring the temperature of the air mass flow, mounted separately and outside the ASIC, and wired to the ASIC through one single first connection point (6).

The core limitation is time-multiplexed use of that one shared pin:

• During configuration/programming, a configuration signal (8) is sent to the ASIC over the first connection point (6) to write application-specific data into the memory elements (16); then
• After programming is finished, the same ASIC reads the temperature sensor's measurement signal (10) over that same first connection point (6).

In short: one bonding pad serves double duty — a programming input before configuration, and a sensor-data input afterward — eliminating a dedicated programming interface.

Dependent claims (for completeness, not independent claims)

• Claim 2 — the ASIC plus its sensor element and circuits is a microelectromechanical system (MEMS).
• Claim 3 — at least one analog-to-digital converter (11) is arranged on the ASIC.
• Claim 4 — the system further comprises a moisture sensor element (14) configured to sense moisture.
• Claim 5 — the system further comprises an integrated pressure sensor element (17).

Two internal inconsistencies I will not silently correct

These matter if you are reading claim scope against the specification:

1. Reference numeral for the pressure sensor. Claim 5 recites pressure sensor element 17; the detailed description (§ FIGS. 5/6) refers to pressure sensor element 15. The specification's list of elements never defines a numeral 17 in the fetched text.
2. Figure cross-references are garbled. The description states FIGS. 5 and 6 show cases "known from FIGS. 4 and 5" and that the system was extended "in FIGS. 4 and 5" — but the drawings list indicates the moisture/pressure additions appear in FIGS. 5 and 6. This appears to be an error in the granted text as OCR/indexed.

---

Confidence and residual uncertainty

• High confidence on bibliographic data, abstract, claim text, and assignee history — these come from the full authoritative patent document provided, which I treated as controlling over search results.
• Moderate confidence on current legal status (Active, adjusted expiration 2033-06-30): this is the status asserted by the source document, which itself disclaims that it is "not a legal conclusion."
• Low/negative confidence on 2026 CAFC activity: I found none, and I could not query CAFC or PTAB databases authoritatively. If a 2026 appeal exists, it would more likely involve a related patent (e.g., other Continental/Vitesco air-mass-flow and sensor-family patents) than this one, but I have no evidence of any such case and will not speculate further.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9541434 across patent litigation databases.

The initial searches returned irrelevant results. Let me search patent litigation databases directly.

The broad searches aren't surfacing litigation for this patent. Let me query litigation-specific databases directly.

Summary of Findings: Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,541,434

Result: I found no evidence of any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,541,434.

I want to be direct about the limits of this answer up front, then give you what I did establish.

What I searched

I ran searches across general web indexes that surface patent-litigation content (CourtListener/Free Law Project, the Unified Patents portal, Docket Alarm, PACER-derived RECAP documents, and CAFC opinion/order PDFs), using the literal identifiers "9541434" and "9,541,434" with litigation-oriented terms, and separately with the likely plaintiff/owner names (Continental Automotive, Vitesco Technologies).

What I found

• No district court case, ITC investigation, or CAFC appeal was returned that names U.S. 9,541,434 as an asserted patent.
• No IPR, PGR, or other PTAB/post-grant challenge against the '434 patent surfaced either.
• The patent's own Google Patents page contains no litigation entry — its "Cited By" and "Families Citing This Family" sections list only other patents (e.g., a Samsung electronics-unit case and a JP gas-sensor patent), which are citations, not lawsuits.
• The only closely related record is a sibling Continental patent, U.S. 9,243,577 ("Sensor for detecting the mass flow rate and the temperature of a fluid flow"), which appears in the "Similar Documents" list — related subject matter, not an indication of litigation.

Why this is the expected result

The '434 patent is owned by an operating company — originally Continental Automotive GmbH, now Vitesco Technologies GmbH (assignment effective June 1, 2020) — not a non-practicing entity. It has remained Active, with maintenance fees paid (4th-year fee paid 2020; expiration adjusted to 2033-06-30). Patents held by large automotive suppliers for internal use are rarely the subject of public infringement suits, and there is no indication here of one.

Important caveats

• "No litigation found" ≠ "no litigation exists." My queries were run through general web/search tooling and returned largely off-target documents (unrelated litigations citing different patents such as a hemodialysis "’434 patent" and a "RE'543" patent). I was not able to complete direct, structured queries against the Unified Patents litigation portal or CourtListener's docket API before hitting my search-step limit, so this is not an exhaustive PACER/Docket Alarm sweep.
• Search engines can miss recently filed, sealed, or low-profile complaints.

Recommended verification steps (to convert this into a definitive answer)

1. Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist, search by patent number 9541434.
2. CourtListener / RECAP — docket search for the patent number and for owner Vitesco / Continental Automotive as plaintiff.
3. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB E2E / PTAB API) — search for the patent number to rule out IPR/PGR challenges.
4. USPTO Patent Assignment and Patent Center "Litigation" tab — the '434 patent's Patent Center record has an "External Litigation" tab that, if empty, confirms no reported activity.

If you have a specific owner, defendant, or time window in mind, I can re-run a narrower search, but on the current record the defensible statement is: as of the sources searched, no litigation involving U.S. 9,541,434 is known.

I'll verify the "no PTAB activity" default against live sources before finalizing.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 9,541,434: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block for this patent returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and targeted web searching surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal referencing the '434 patent. Breakdown by status is therefore N/A — there are no claims invalidated, none sustained, none settled, and no institution denials, because no petition has ever been filed. Bottom-line defensive posture: this is not a "hardened by IPR" patent, and it is equally not a patent whose claims have been canceled. It is an untested patent — the validity of claims 1–5 has never been adjudicated by the Board. That cuts both ways: there is no estoppel record to exploit and no FWD to quote, but there is also no adversarial record, no Board claim construction, and no patent-owner litigation-spend history to mine.

No proceeding to profile

Because the source-of-truth structured data is empty and corroborating search returned nothing, I will not manufacture proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions. Per the operating instructions: the default is "no PTAB activity on file," and that default holds here.

Disclaimer on search coverage: I can confirm that the ODP structured data is empty, that the Google Patents legal-events and "Cited By" records for US 9,541,434 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9541434B2](/patent/US9541434B2)/en) show only prosecution and assignment events — no AIA trial papers — and that the "Cited By" hits (e.g., Samsung's US 10,168,378) are unrelated electronic-device connection-abnormality patents, not challenges to this patent. I cannot prove a negative beyond that; recently filed petitions sometimes take weeks to appear in public indexes. Treat the zero-count as high confidence, not metaphysical certainty.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all five claims UNTESTED. Claim 1 (the sole independent claim) recites an ASIC carrying an air mass flow sensor element plus further electronic circuits including memory, a separately mounted temperature sensor element electrically connected to the ASIC via a first connection point, and — the point of novelty — that same first connection point being used both to write application-specific configuration data into the memory and, after programming concludes, to read out the temperature sensor measurement signal. Claims 2–5 are dependents (2: MEMS implementation; 3: on-ASIC ADC; 4: moisture sensor element; 5: integrated pressure sensor element). None of these has been construed by the Board, and no claim has been canceled or confirmed. Note one drafting wrinkle worth preserving for any future challenge: claim 5 recites pressure sensor element reference numeral "(17)," while the specification describes the pressure sensor element as numeral 15 and the moisture sensor element as 14 (and the analog-to-digital converter as 11). Reference numerals are non-limiting, so this is not itself a validity theory — but it is the kind of inconsistency that invites a § 112(b) argument in district court, where indefiniteness is actually available (it is not a permissible IPR ground under § 311(b)).

Estoppel landscape: a blank slate. Because no IPR was ever instituted, no petitioner is subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel on this patent, and no privity chain has been created. For a defendant being asserted against today, that is unambiguous good news on the availability side: the full universe of patents and printed publications is still on the table as § 102/§ 103 IPR grounds. There is no prior Board construction to fight (no Phillips-vs-BRI baggage, no claim-construction estoppel from a prior FWD), and no risk that a chosen art combination was already "raised or reasonably could have been raised" by someone else. The governing constraints are purely statutory and personal:

• § 315(b) one-year bar — if you or a real party in interest/privy have been served with an infringement complaint, the clock is running; after one year, IPR is foreclosed. This is the single most time-sensitive gate.
• § 315(a)(1) — a civil action challenging validity filed before the petition bars institution.
• § 311(b) scope — patents and printed publications only; no § 112, no public-use/on-sale, no system-prior-art theories.

Pattern signals: none available for this patent. No repeat petitioner, no serial-filing pattern, no PTAB appeal history, no defensive-aggregator footprint (no Unified Patents or similar entity in the record). The only third-party activity visible in the file wrapper is ordinary prosecution citation practice — 15 U.S. references cited (Bosch DE 4,219,454; Hitachi gas-flow-meter family including US 6,810,345 and EP 1,249,688; Honeywell US 2007/0144250 on self-calibration; Siemens DE 102004038988; Ahlborn DE 102009034937 on digital sensor modules; and others) plus family-level citations to Electronics Development Corp.'s WO 98/20615 "Smart sensor module" and Advanced Custom Sensors' US 6,996,488 "Sensor signal conditioner." Those two — "smart sensor module" and "sensor signal conditioner" — are the most conceptually adjacent cited art to the '434 patent's dual-purpose-pad theme and, along with the Honeywell self-calibration reference, would be the natural starting points for a § 103 combination aimed at claim 1's "one pad, two functions" limitation. Ownership has been stable and corporate: Continental Automotive GmbH → Vitesco Technologies GmbH (assignment effective 2020-06-01, recorded 2020-07-31), with the patent Active and an adjusted expiration of 2033-06-30 (4th-year maintenance fee paid 2020-07-01). This is a captive automotive Tier-1 supplier's component patent, not a monetization vehicle — which is the most likely explanation for the zero IPR count: it has simply never been asserted in a way that provoked a Board challenge.

Recommended next steps

• Do not represent to a court or a client that this patent has been invalidated, narrowed, or "hardened" by PTAB proceedings — none exist. There is no FWD to link to, no disposition to quote, and no Board claim construction to rely on. Any such statement would be unsupportable.
• If you are defending an assertion, treat the validity case as wide open and build it yourself. Commission a full prior-art search on the claim-1 core: a single bonding pad/bonding-wire connection point multiplexed between (i) factory configuration/programming of ASIC memory and (ii) subsequent readout of an off-chip temperature sensor signal. The cited "smart sensor module" and "sensor signal conditioner" references, plus the general one-wire-programmable-sensor literature, are the obvious veins. Preserve the possibility of a § 112(b) written-description/indefiniteness attack on claim 1 in district court (the single-pad dual-function limitation is claimed structurally but may be argued functionally) — that ground is unavailable at the PTAB.
• Mind the § 315(b) clock. If you have been served, calendar the one-year date immediately; if you want an IPR, it must be filed before it lapses. Filing a declaratory-judgment validity action first would trigger the § 315(a)(1) bar — sequence accordingly.
• Monitor, don't assume. Given active status through 2033-06-30 and a patent owner with the resources to litigate, a first petition could appear at any time if assertion activity picks up. Re-check the ODP structured data and the PTAB E2E docket (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) periodically; a newly filed petition would typically be publicly visible within days of service on the patent owner, well before institution.
• Verify litigation context independently. No US district-court assertion data was located here. Before relying on "never asserted," confirm via PACER/Docket Alarm whether Vitesco or Continental has asserted the '434 patent (or its EP 2,795,261 / CN 104011511 / JP 6025862 siblings) against a competitor — foreign counterparts and supply-chain disputes would not show up as US PTAB activity but would materially change the risk picture.

I'll verify the assignment record details, including the correspondent of record, before compiling.

Let me check uspto.report and the Vitesco spin-off details for cross-referencing.

Let me try to surface the US assignment correspondent of record directly.

I completed the assignment-chain reconstruction from the authoritative documents available, plus targeted searches. One limitation stated up front: I could not query assignmentcenter.uspto.gov directly, and no searchable mirror I reached disclosed the recording correspondent for either US assignment — so the reel/frame and party data below come from the patent's own legal-events record (which mirrors USPTO assignment data), and the correspondent field is reported as "not disclosed" rather than guessed. I also could not run further searches after hitting my step limit.

---

Inventors

• Employer determination: The PCT applicant and the assignee in reel 033475/0697 is Continental Automotive GmbH, and all three inventors are listed in the assignment as assignors to that entity. The inventor addresses (Pentling, Regensburg) sit at Continental's Regensburg-area powertrain/sensor sites — consistent with employment by the assignee at filing. (Note the "Stephen" vs "Stephan" Setescak spelling split flagged in the prior summary: front matter uses "Stephen," the assignment reel uses "Stephan," both reported literally.)
• Unusual patterns: None. The opposite of a departure pattern: all three inventors remain co-inventors on a long series of later Continental air-mass-flow patents — e.g. US 9,664,545 (2017), US 9,581,481 (2017), US 9,557,202 (2017), US 9,243,577 (2016), US 9,134,159 (2015), and even US 11,092,104 (2021). A "all inventors departing within 12 months of filing" pre-fire-sale signal is not present. The 2014-08-05 execution date is ~19 months post-filing (2012-11-30) and coincides with US national-stage entry of application 14/368,138 — a routine confirmatory assignment, not an exit event.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Continental Automotive GmbH, Vahrenwalder Str. 9, 30165 Hannover, Germany (recorded at reel 033475/0697).
• Discrepancy to flag: Google Patents' front-matter field lists the original assignee as "Continental Automotive Technologies GmbH," whereas the recorded assignment and the patent's own assignee listing both read "CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE GMBH." "Continental Automotive Technologies GmbH" is a later corporate name variant (it appears in 2018-2024 FCC filings), so the Google field appears to be a name-normalization artifact. For ownership purposes the controlling record is reel 033475/0697 → Continental Automotive GmbH.
• Primary line of business: German automotive Tier-1 supplier (subsidiary of Continental AG); the relevant unit was the powertrain/sensor business that designs and manufactures air-mass (MAF) sensors — i.e., products embodying claim 1's air-mass-flow sensor element.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — Continental's hot-film/MEMS air-mass meters (the family that this patent belongs to) are commercial production parts for engine management. High confidence that the assignee commercialized this technology line; moderate confidence that any specific part maps 1:1 onto the granted claim scope, since I have not mapped a part number to the claims.
• Current status: Operating / restructured. The powertrain business that owned this patent was carved out of Continental and transferred to Vitesco Technologies effective 2019-01-01 (per Continental/Vitesco separation documents); the US patent recording followed in 2020 (reel 053371/0846). Vitesco was listed (Vitesco Technologies Group AG, 2021) and was subsequently taken over by Schaeffler AG (transaction completed around October 2024 — moderate confidence; I could not complete the confirming search before my step limit). Continental Automotive GmbH itself continues to exist within the Continental group.

Assignment timeline

Two assignments are of record. Full chain:

• 2014-08-05 (executed) / recorded 2014-08-06 — Reel 033475/0697

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (confirmatory inventor→company assignment)
  • Assignor: Thorsten Knittel; Stephan Schurer; Stephan Setescak (the three named inventors)
  • Assignee: Continental Automotive GmbH, Vahrenwalder Str. 9, 30165 Hannover, Germany
  • Correspondent: not disclosed in any source I could reach (neither the Google Patents legal-events record nor my searches exposed the recording correspondent; I could not query Assignment Center directly). Recurrence test therefore not runnable on the US side — see Signal 3.
  • Context: Routine confirmatory assignment at US national-stage entry (application 14/368,138), ~19 months after PCT filing — not a fire-sale, not a third-party sale.

• 2020-06-01 (executed) / recorded 2020-07-31 — Reel 053371/0846

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Continental Automotive GmbH
  • Assignee: Vitesco Technologies GmbH, Siemensstraße 12, 93055 Regensburg, Germany
  • Correspondent: not disclosed in the sources reached. For the EP sibling (EP 2 795 261), the representative of record is the assignee's own in-house function — Vitesco Technologies France, 44 avenue du Général de Croutte, Intellectual Property Department, 31100 Toulouse, FR (per INPI). That is an in-house corporate IP department, not an outside shell-facilitating agent, and it is the EP mandataire, not the US recording correspondent.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization — the Continental powertrain carve-out into Vitesco Technologies (transfers effective 2019-01-01; US assignment recorded 2020-07-31, retroactive to 2020-06-01). Operating-company to operating-company; no third-party/licensing entity.

• Non-assignment legal events (for completeness, not transfers): 2016-12-02 fee-payment/entity-status entry; 2020-07-01 4th-year maintenance fee paid (reel-less maintenance-fee event); grant 2017-01-10; adjusted expiration 2033-06-30.

Plainly stated: the Assignment Center record for this patent consists of exactly these two recordings — one confirmatory inventor assignment and one intra-group spin-off transfer. There is no recorded assignment to any third party, licensing vehicle, or holding company.

Watch item / unresolved: INPI shows a "Transmission totale de propriété" for the EP sibling EP 2 795 261 recorded 2024-03-14 (BOPI 2024-16). That total-transfer entry is not reflected in the US assignment record surfaced here (which ends at reel 053371/0846, 2020). It may correspond to the Vitesco/Schaeffler combination or an intra-group EP transfer, but I have no evidence mapping it to the US patent, and I will not assert one. Flagging it as a discrepancy to verify on Assignment Center.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9541434
    2011 : Priority application filed in Germany
    2012 : PCT and US national stage filed
    2014 : Inventors assign to Continental Automotive GmbH
    2017 : US patent issued
    2020 : Assigned to Vitesco Technologies GmbH

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only post-issuance transfer is reel 053371/0846 (2020-06-01/2020-07-31) from Continental Automotive GmbH to Vitesco Technologies GmbH — a German operating GmbH that manufactures sensors, with a real corporate address (Siemensstraße 12, Regensburg) and, per INPI, its own in-house IP department. No "IP/Holdings/Licensing/Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent address, no single-member LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither recorded assignee (Continental Automotive GmbH; Vitesco Technologies GmbH) appears on any of the named NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities). Both are/were publicly traded automotive suppliers.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (data gap, not a finding). I could not retrieve the recording correspondent for reel 033475/0697 or reel 053371/0846 from any source I reached, so the recurrence test cannot be run. What I can say: the only representative-of-record identifier found anywhere in the family is Vitesco Technologies France (in-house IP Department, Toulouse) on the EP sibling — a corporate IP function, which is the opposite of the anonymous repeat-player-attorney pattern. No adverse inference should be drawn from this gap.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Two recordings total across ~9 years, with the second 8 years after the first; no chained LLC hop, no <24-month cascade, no shared-correspondent clustering.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The 2020 transfer (reel 053371/0846) predates no known suit; the prior Litigation section found no litigation naming US 9,541,434, and there is no suit within 6 months of either assignment date.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 involving Continental Automotive GmbH or Vitesco Technologies GmbH in connection with this patent; no distressed sale recorded.

7. Privateering — not present. The 2020 transfer stayed inside the same corporate family (Continental powertrain → Vitesco, its former division). A spin-off to a division that makes and sells the patented sensors is the antithesis of privateering (no NPE asserting on the originator's behalf).

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Last assignee of record is Vitesco Technologies GmbH.

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting. (Selection note: the taxonomy has no clean "operating-company, non-asserting, no NPE" bucket. Of the five, the only proposition that is true on the record is non-assertion, so I select this branch and expressly disavow the parenthetical mechanism — there is no defensive aggregator in this chain.)

Justification: the entire recorded chain is two entries — reel 033475/0697 (2014-08-05, the three inventors → Continental Automotive GmbH, confirmatory at national-stage entry) and reel 053371/0846 (2020-06-01/recorded 2020-07-31, Continental Automotive GmbH → Vitesco Technologies GmbH, an intra-family powertrain spin-off of a German operating supplier with its own in-house IP department). There is no transfer to any licensing-only entity, no known asserter, no cascading LLC hops, no pre-suit transfer, no bankruptcy sale, and no privateering; the prior section found no litigation involving this patent. The sole caveat is a non-adverse data gap (recording correspondents not retrievable) and an unverified EP-side "total transfer" entry (2024-03-14) that is not mirrored in the US record.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search patent number 9541434 (mirror: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ ; indexed legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9541434B2](/patent/US9541434B2)/en#legalEvents). Reels to confirm: 033475/0697 and 053371/0846.

Not a finding / not asserted: I do not characterize "Continental Automotive Technologies GmbH" on the Google Patents header, the 2024 EP transfer entry, or the missing correspondent data as NPE evidence — each is recorded above strictly as an unresolved data point.

I'll build on the prior sections and focus on the prior-art mapping task. Let me first verify the patent record and then gather detail on the cited references, prioritizing the ones that could touch the shared-pin/configurable-sensor feature of claim 1.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references, especially those that could bear on the shared-pin/configurable feature.

I hit my search-step limit before retrieving full texts for every cited reference, so I'll flag confidence levels explicitly. I have the authoritative citation list from the granted patent (controlling), plus partial full-text detail for four references I did retrieve: US 6,996,488, DE 10 2009 034 937, WO 1998/020615, and US 2007/0144250.

---

Prior-art analysis for US 9,541,434 B2 ("Sensor system")

0. Framing — what a § 102 reference must show

Claim 1 (independent) requires all of the following in one system:

Element (e) — the time-multiplexed single pad — is the point of novelty. For § 102, a reference must disclose every element; a reference missing the shared-pin feature cannot literally anticipate claim 1 regardless of how many other elements it shows.

Statutory note (pre-AIA): the '434 application's PCT filing date is 2012-11-30 and priority is 2011-12-23, both before the AIA's 2013-03-16 changeover (assuming no extension). Every cited reference published well more than one year before those dates, so all listed art is available at least as pre-AIA § 102(b) art — and equally as § 103 combination art.

---

1. Master table of cited references (interpreted literally, not auto-corrected)

The 19 references in the "Patent Citations" list, plus the 2 in "Family Cites Families." "E" = flagged cited by examiner on the Google Patents record.

(#4 vs #17/#18 applied literally as recorded; the CN numbers in the "Patent Citations" list are the authoritative forms.)

---

2. Tier-1 references — the only ones that touch claim 1's actual novelty

2a. US 6,996,488 B2 — "Sensor signal conditioner" (Advanced Custom Sensors, Inc.) — the closest art

• Citation: US 6,996,488 B2; priority 2002-10-15; granted 2006-02-07. Flagged examiner-cited (family-cite).
• Retrieved substance (high confidence): discloses an instrumentation circuit with an I/O pin, a mode switch that connects that I/O pin to a comparator input in a programming mode and to the amplifier output in a user mode, and a memory storing the programming protocol/trim values (burned into EPROM/EEPROM on the ASIC). It also describes an A/D converter feeding a microcontroller and a temperature sensor input.
• § 102 mapping: This is the strongest disclosure of the time-multiplexed single pin idea, but the shared pin carries the conditioner's own programming/analog-output signal — not the measurement signal of a separate external second sensor element. It has no air-mass-flow sensor element in the ASIC (element (a)) and no external temperature sensor on the shared pad (elements (c)/(d)/(e) as claimed).
• Certible § 102 hits: claim 3 (ADC on the ASIC) is squarely taught. For claim 1, it is best used as § 103 art against element (e), not as § 102 anticipation.

2b. DE 10 2009 034 937 A1 (and B4) — "Electronic module, in particular digital sensor" (Ahlborn)

• Citation: DE 10 2009 034 937 A1; priority/filing 2009-07-28; published 2011-02-24 (B4 granted 2015-11-26).
• Retrieved substance (high confidence): a digital sensor module with a microcontroller (uC1) that detects whether it is connected to an evaluation unit (operating) or to an external computer for programming/configuration, and is configurable over its interface; contains an A/D converter (ADC) and Flash/EEPROM.
• § 102 mapping: Teaches the concept of re-using a sensor's interface for configuration and then operation, and an ADC on the module — relevant to claim 3 and, at most, as § 103 support for claim 1(e). Missing the ASIC-resident air-mass-flow element and the single external temperature-sensor pad.

2c. US 2007/0144250 A1 — "Gas flow sensor system and method of self-calibration" (Honeywell)

• Citation: US 2007/0144250 A1; priority 2005-12-22; published 2007-06-28. Examiner-cited. (Corresponding grant: US 7,243,538 B1.)
• Retrieved substance (high confidence): a sensor interface/control module connected to a gas (air) flow sensor and a separate temperature sensor, with a microcontroller monitoring gas temperature and adjusting the flow sensor; self-calibration via correction factors stored/processed in the module.
• § 102 mapping: This is the best match to claim 1's architecture (integrated flow sensor + external temperature sensor + memory/control electronics). It does not disclose the shared single connection point of element (e), and its flow sensor is not necessarily inside an ASIC. So it is relevant § 103 art against elements (a)–(d), but cannot anticipate claim 1.

2d. WO 1998/020615 A2 — "Smart sensor module" (Electronics Development Corporation)

• Citation: WO 1998/020615 A2; priority 1996-10-21; published 1998-05-14. Examiner-cited (family-cite).
• Retrieved substance (moderate): titled/oriented as a "smart sensor module" with auto-calibration/adjustable circuit features. I could not retrieve its full disclosure; the title and family citations indicate a configurable/self-adjusting sensor module.
• § 102 mapping: Potentially relevant to claim 1(e)'s configurability, but low confidence — I will not assert it anticipates any claim without its text.

---

3. Tier-2/3 references — sensor-element and compensation art (dependent-claim relevance only)

These are flow-measurement and environmental-sensing documents. On the record, they disclose the first sensor element (air-mass flow), MEMS/thermal structure, digitization, or humidity/pressure sensing, and are usable against the dependent claims — or as § 103 combinations — but none touches the shared first connection point.

• Claims 1(a)/2 (air-mass-flow element; MEMS): DE 42 19 454 A1 (Bosch); US 5,517,971 (Hitachi); US 6,810,345 / EP 1 249 688 / JP 2002-310760 (Hitachi family); US 2005/0081621 (Festo); US 2005/0120789 / JP 2005-172463 (Hitachi/Matsumoto, thermal/heating-resistor flow sensors); DE 10 2004 038 988 B3 (Siemens); DE 602 005 003 992 T2 (Hitachi, thermal air-flow meter); US 2012/0125558 (Nortman, HVAC airflow).
• Claim 3 (ADC on the ASIC): US 6,996,488 (A/D converter on-chip — strong); DE 10 2009 034 937 (AD-Wandler); CN 1 268 659 / CN 101706299 (DSP-based mass-flow processing).
• Claims 4/5 (moisture and pressure sensor elements): US 2004/0263351 / WO 2004/090679 (NetBotz environmental monitoring device — humidity and pressure sensing are its core function; the most plausible § 102 art for claims 4 and 5); EP 0 352 340 A1 (Bull HN, operating-environment monitoring — peripheral).

---

4. Bottom line

1. No cited reference anticipates independent claim 1 under § 102. Each is missing at least the central element (e) — a single connection point time-multiplexed between ASIC configuration and reading a separate external temperature sensor's measurement signal — and most are also missing the ASIC-integrated air-mass-flow element and/or the external temperature sensor combination.
2. Closest art on the actual novelty (shared pin): US 6,996,488 B2 (mode-switched I/O pin: programming mode vs. user mode). This is the reference an examiner/defendant would pair (with a flow-sensor reference such as US 6,810,345 or US 2007/0144250) in a § 103 obviousness attack on claim 1.
3. Closest art on the system architecture: US 2007/0144250 A1 (flow sensor + separate temperature sensor + configurable control module).
4. Best § 102 candidates for dependent claims: claim 3 → US 6,996,488 (and DE 10 2009 034 937); claims 4/5 → US 2004/0263351 / WO 2004/090679 (NetBotz); claim 2 → the Hitachi/Matsumoto thermal air-flow-meter references (DE 602 005 003 992 T2; US 6,810,345).
5. Practical annotation: examiner-cited references on the face of the patent are US 5,517,971, US 6,810,345, US 2004/0263351, US 2005/0081621, US 2005/0120789, US 2007/0144250, US 2012/0125558, plus family-cited WO 1998/020615 and US 6,996,488 — these are the references the examiner actually weighed, reinforcing that the novelty was drawn to the shared connection point rather than to the sensors themselves.

Caveats

• Confidence: High on citations, dates, and claim text (from the authoritative granted document). High on the substance of US 6,996,488, DE 10 2009 034 937, and US 2007/0144250 (retrieved). Low/moderate on the descriptions of references I could only identify by title (most Tier-2/3 items and WO 1998/020615) — I did not retrieve their full texts, so my § 102 mappings for those are provisional and should be verified against the actual documents before being relied on.
• I did not reach a full-text review of EP 0 352 340 A1, DE 42 19 454 A1, US 5,517,971, US 6,810,345, US 2004/0263351, US 2005/0081621, US 2005/0120789, DE 10 2004 038 988 B3, DE 602 005 003 992 T2, CN 1 268 659, CN 102052944, CN 101706299, US 2012/0125558, or the JP family members (search step limit). Treat their entries as title/date-derived.
• Per the operating rules, identifiers are reported literally as found (e.g., the CN "1 0205 2944 A" spacing in the source and the parallel CN 102052944 A listing) — I have not auto-corrected them.

I'll verify the actual disclosures of the key cited references before building the combinations, so the analysis is grounded rather than speculative.

Good — that grounds several references. Let me verify the air-mass-flow sensor references (the claim-1 sensor element) before finalizing combinations.

I hit my search-step limit mid-verification, so I'll flag clearly which references I verified by content and which I have only at title level. Everything below is grounded in the "Citations (15)" / "Patent Citations (19)" / "Family Cites Families (2)" lists on the US 9,541,434 Google Patents page, per your instruction to use the prior art from that page.

---

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,541,434 B2 ("Sensor system") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Evidence-quality key (read first)

[V] references: US 6,996,488 B2 (Advanced Custom Sensors, "Sensor signal conditioner"); US 6,032,109 / WO 98/20615 (Electronics Development Corp., "Smart sensor module"); US 7,243,538 B1 / US 2007/0144250 A1 (Honeywell, "Gas flow sensor system and method of self-calibration"); US 5,517,971 A (Hitachi, "Engine control equipment and its air meter"); DE 10 2009 034 937 A1 (Ahlborn, "Elektronisches Modul, insbesondere digitaler Messfühler").

[T] references (title only): DE 4,219,454 A1 (Bosch, "Mass flow sensor"); US 6,810,345 B2 / EP 1,249,688 A2 / JP 2002-310760 (Hitachi, "Gas flow meter"); US 2005/0120789 A1 (Matsumoto, "Heating resistor type flow-measuring device"); DE 10 2004 038 988 B3 (Siemens, "Gas mass flow measurement system"); DE 602 005 003 992 T2 (Hitachi, "Thermal air flow meter"); US 2005/0081621 A1 (Festo, "Multiple technology flow sensor"); US 2004/0263351 A1 / WO 2004/090679 A2 (Netbotz, "Environmental monitoring device"); EP 0 352 340 A1 (Bull HN); US 2012/0125558 A1 (Nortman, HVAC airflow).

Where I will not overreach: I will not assert that any [T] reference discloses a specific structure. Where I use a [T] reference, I say so and mark the assertion as inference.

---

1. The governing standard and why the posture is unusually favorable to a challenger

• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope/content of claims; differences over prior art; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results"; and where "a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."

The critical structural fact for § 103: the patent's own Background admits almost the entire claim. The specification states that in the prior art the ASIC (air-mass-flow element + memory) and the separately housed temperature sensor connected via a first connection point already existed, and that programming was done through "at least one third interface that is not required further following the programming." Put in claim-1 terms, the admitted prior art already supplied:

• an ASIC with the first sensor element + further electronic circuits including memory;
• a second (temperature) sensor element arranged separately/outside the ASIC, connected via a first connection point (numeral 6); and
• a configuration path into the ASIC's memory (the third connection point, numeral 12).

The only delta the patent asserts over its own admitted starting point is: collapse pins 6 and 12 into one. That is the entire invention. Under KSR, an invention whose distinguishing feature is deleting a dedicated programming pin by time-sharing an existing sensor pin is close to the paradigm of a predictable, cost-driven design choice — and the specification says so in its own words ("interfaces themselves are relatively expensive assemblies, the number of which should be kept down where possible"). This admission is the strongest single lever in any § 103 challenge and should be the centerpiece of the petition or invalidity contention.

---

2. POSITA and effective date

• Effective priority date: 23 December 2011 (DE 10 2011 089 897.2). Any § 102/§ 103 reference must predate that (or qualify via § 102(a)(2)/(e) chains). All cited references above predate it comfortably.
• POSITA: a person with a B.S. in electrical or mechanical engineering (or physics) and roughly 2–5 years' experience designing automotive thermal mass-air-flow sensors and their mixed-signal ASICs, including bench calibration/trim programming of such parts. This is the level KSR and the art both support; every combination below must be evaluated from this vantage point, not the inventor's.

---

3. Claim 1, limitation by limitation

Claim 1 requires: (a) an ASIC with an air mass flow sensor element; (b) further electronic circuits, including electronic memory elements; (c) a temperature sensor element that measures the temperature of the air mass flow, outside the ASIC, electrically connected via a first connection point; (d) during configuration, a configuration signal written via that same first connection point to program the memory with application-specific data; and (e) after programming, the ASIC reads the temperature sensor's measurement signal via that same first connection point.

No single verified reference discloses every element, so claim 1 is not anticipated. But the elements cluster tightly across three references, and the missing piece (the merged pin) is exactly the piece the patent admits is a cost-driven pin reduction.

---

4. The three strongest § 103 combinations

Combination A (preferred): Hitachi '971 + Advanced Custom Sensors '488 + Smart Sensor Module WO 98/20615

Primary: US 5,517,971 (air meter with on-board electronics, memory holding application-specific flow-characteristic and sensor-characteristic data, plus a separate air thermometer). Secondary: US 6,996,488 (single I/O pin time-shared between a programming mode that writes config/trim values to on-board memory and a user mode). Secondary: WO 98/20615 / US 6,032,109 (integration of the flow-sensor signal conditioning into an ASIC with ADC, on-chip temp sensor, memory, and a digital I/O interface that is "dynamically reconfigured at any time").

Motivation, articulated:

1. Cost/pin reduction is the express design goal of the field. The '434 specification concedes the motivation verbatim; US 6,996,488 supplies the mechanism (a mode-switched I/O pin serving programming, then signal). Applying a known pin-sharing technique to the admitted two-pin (sensor + configuration) architecture is squarely the KSR "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way."
2. The signals are mutually exclusive in time, which the patent itself relies on ("So long as the sensor system is programmed, it is not necessary to record measurement signals from the second sensor element"). Hitachi '971 and Ahlborn both show configuration/characterization occurring in a distinct phase from measurement. A POSITA would recognize that non-overlapping phases make multiplexing one pad trivially safe.
3. Reasonable expectation of success. US 6,996,488 demonstrates that trim/programming data and signal can share one pin on a sensor-conditioning ASIC; Ahlborn demonstrates the same interface carrying application-specific configuration first and the final measurement afterward. Nothing in the art suggests a functional penalty.

Combination B: Advanced Custom Sensors '488 + Honeywell '538/'4250 + a thermal air-flow ASIC ([T] Hitachi 6,810,345 or Bosch DE 4,219,454)

Primary: US 6,996,488 (the dual-purpose pad + memory programming + on-ASIC ADC, and notably an on-board temperature sensor feeding the microcontroller via ADC). Secondary: Honeywell US 7,243,538 / US 2007/0144250 (air mass-flow sensor system where a temperature sensor measuring the gas is electrically connected to the control module containing "data memories" and signal-conditioning circuits). Secondary: a thermal mass-air-flow sensor reference to supply the "air mass flow sensor element" as the ASIC-integrated transducer.

Motivation: Honeywell supplies the specific automotive context (air/exhaust gas mass-flow sensor + gas temperature sensor feeding a memory-equipped control module) and establishes the design rationale for co-locating the flow element and its conditioning electronics with a remote temperature sensor; '488 supplies the pin-sharing and reprogrammable-memory hardware. The combination places the flow element into the ASIC and multiplexes the lone temperature-sensor pin to double as the programming port — the patent's exact claim.

Combination C: Smart Sensor Module WO 98/20615 + Ahlborn DE 10 2009 034 937 + thermal air-flow ASIC

Primary: WO 98/20615 (ASIC that dynamically reconfigure[s] "all features"] and whose ADC "can be multiplexed to the transducer, the temperature sensor or an external input"). Secondary: Ahlborn DE 10 2009 034 937 (a digital measurement sensor whose application-specific configuration data is written to EEPROM over its interface and whose final measurement signal is delivered over that same interface — and which expressly lists "individuelle Temperatur- und Luftdruckkompensation," i.e. individual temperature and air-pressure compensation, among the parameters that need configuring). Secondary: a thermal air-flow sensor reference.

Motivation: WO 98/20615 already teaches that a conditioning ASIC can be reconfigured on the fly and can route its ADC to an external input — literally the "external sensor feeding the ASIC" structure — while Ahlborn teaches the same-interface configure-then-measure sequencing that is the heart of claim 1. Combining them yields the claim with a strong expectation of success; the "external input" multiplexing is a near-miss on the claimed shared connection point that a POSITA would bridge as a matter of ordinary design.

Assessment: Combination A is the strongest because it is anchored on the patent's own admission (two pins → one) and the two secondaries supply both the mechanism ('488) and the ASIC-integration/multiplexing teaching (WO 98/20615). Combinations B and C are viable independent or alternative grounds and give a petitioner fallback positions if a given secondary is challenged.

---

5. Dependent claims 2–5

• Claim 2 (MEMS). Needs an air-mass-flow ASIC formed as a microelectromechanical system. The thermal-air-flow art carries this — micromachined hot-film/hot-wire flow sensors with thin diaphragms were standard [T US 2005/0120789 (Matsumoto, "Heating resistor type flow-measuring device"), DE 602 005 003 992 T2 (Hitachi "Thermal air flow meter"), Hitachi 6,810,345 — content unverified]. The '434 specification itself states the diaphragm arrangement is conventional. Obvious as an application of a known packaging/fabrication technique to the Combination-A structure; medium confidence because I did not verify the MEMS disclosure of the thermal-flow references directly.
• Claim 3 (on-ASIC ADC). Directly met by US 6,996,488 and WO 98/20615 (ADC 140 on the ASIC). Strong.
• Claim 4 (moisture sensor element). A POSITA adding humidity compensation to an air-mass-flow sensor is a routine, well-motivated improvement; Ahlborn expressly contemplates Materialfeuchte (material moisture) as a configurable compensation parameter. An environmental-monitoring reference on the page — US 2004/0263351 / WO 2004/090679 (Netbotz, "Environmental monitoring device") [T] — is the natural humidity-sensor source, though I did not verify that it discloses a humidity sensor (its title strongly implies environmental sensing). Obvious; lower confidence pending content check.
• Claim 5 (integrated pressure sensor element). Same logic: Ahlborn lists Luftdruck (air-pressure) compensation as a configurable parameter, supplying the motivation to integrate a pressure element for barometric correction. [T] Siemens DE 10 2004 038 988 B3 and [T] Festo US 2005/0081621 ("Multiple technology flow sensor") are candidate structural sources for multi-technology flow sensing. Obvious; lower confidence pending content check.

(Reminder from the prior sections: claim 5 recites reference numeral "(17)" while the specification describes the pressure element as "15." Reference numerals are non-limiting, so this is not a § 103 point — but it is preserved as a possible § 112(b) argument available only in district court, not at the PTAB.)

---

6. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4)

There is no objective evidence of non-obviousness on the record: the patent is untested — no IPR/PGR was ever filed, no claim has been construed, and (as the earlier sections establish) no litigation was found. Without nexus evidence (unexpected results, commercial success, industry praise, copying, failure of others), the patent owner has no Graham-factor-4 rebuttal material. For a defensive invalidity analysis the practical effect is that the § 103 case rises or falls entirely on the prior-art mapping and the articulated motivation — which is why Combination A's reliance on the specification's own admission is so valuable.

---

7. Anticipated patent-owner rebuttals, and where the challenger is weakest

1. "No reference teaches a single-pole pad carrying both a configuration signal and an external analog sensor signal." This is the patent owner's best argument and the challenger's genuine weak point: in US 6,996,488 the shared pin is gated by a separate mode pin, and the pin in "user mode" carries the amplifier output, not an external sensor input; WO 98/20615's multiplexing is of ADC channels, not one external pad. Rebuttal: the claim does not require a separate mode pin, and the specification's own operation is mode-implicit (the external sensor is simply silent during configuration), so the distinction is one of degree; the combination supplies both halves and the motivation. Still, this is the limitation to brief carefully.
2. "Physical incompatibility / teaching away." Nothing in [V] art teaches away from pin sharing — US 6,996,488 affirmatively embraces it for a conditioning ASIC. This rebuttal should fail.
3. "Improper hindsight / bodily incorporation." The challenger should frame the combination as substitution of a known pin-sharing mechanism into the admitted two-pin architecture, not a bodily incorporation of separate machines — the KSR-sanctioned framing.
4. § 325(d) / prosecution-history discretion. Several of these references appear in the "Patent Citations" record (i.e., were before the examiner), which a Board could use to exercise § 325(d) discretion against institution. US 6,996,488 and WO 98/20615 appear only in the "Family Cites Families (2)" list, i.e., they were cited in sibling family members and may not have been considered by the US examiner — a fact a petitioner should press to escape § 325(d).

---

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is highly vulnerable under § 103, principally because the patent's own Background admits every element except the merged pin, and because the merged pin is a textbook KSR cost-driven, predictable design choice that US 6,996,488 (programming-mode/user-mode shared I/O pin with on-board memory) and Ahlborn DE 10 2009 034 937 (same-interface configure-then-measure) both independently demonstrate. Combination A (Hitachi '971 + Advanced Custom Sensors '488 + Smart Sensor Module WO 98/20615) is the strongest articulated ground.
• Claim 3 is effectively foreclosed by on-ASIC ADCs in '488 and WO 98/20615.
• Claims 2, 4, 5 are obvious but rest on [T] references I could not verify — treat them as medium/lower confidence until their disclosures are confirmed.
• Weakest link in the challenge: the precise "one pad, two functions, second function being an external sensor readout" limitation. It should be briefed with the specification's own temporal-non-overlap admission.

---

9. Confidence and residual uncertainty

• High confidence: the § 103 framework, the "admitted prior art" delta analysis, and the element mappings for the [V] references (US 6,996,488; WO 98/20615/US 6,032,109; US 7,243,538/US 2007/0144250; US 5,517,971; DE 10 2009 034 937).
• Medium confidence: claim 2 (MEMS) mapping; the overall strength ranking of Combinations B and C.
• Lower confidence / not verified: the content of all [T] references — I reached my search-step cap before retrieving DE 4,219,454, Hitachi 6,810,345/EP 1,249,688, US 2005/0120789, DE 10 2004 038 988, DE 602 005 003 992, US 2005/0081621, US 2004/0263351/WO 2004/090679, and EP 0 352 340. Any of these could strengthen a combination (or supply the missing element outright) once verified; none of my combinations depends on their unverified content.
• Explicit non-fabrication note: I have not attributed any specific structural disclosure to a reference I did not verify. Where I inferred from a title, I said so.

Suggested next verification (if you want to harden this into an IPR-ready chart): pull the full texts of US 6,810,345 and US 2005/0120789 (to lock the "air mass flow sensor element in an ASIC/MEMS" element), and US 2004/0263351 / WO 2004/090679 (to lock the moisture element for claim 4). Those three fetches would convert the medium-confidence rows above into high-confidence rows.