US 9711917

I'll verify the patent details against authoritative sources before summarizing.

Let me check for any CAFC 2026 litigation activity involving this patent.

Let me verify whether US 9,711,917 is among the patents in the Federal Circuit case 24-1776.

US 9,711,917 B2 — Verification Summary

Important scoping note: I searched for CAFC 2026 docket activity tied specifically to 9711917. The only significant 2026 Federal Circuit case I located involving PPC Broadband is PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024‑1776/‑1777/‑1778/‑1779 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2026) (Rule 36 per curiam affirmance of PTAB). That appeal does not concern US 9,711,917. The four patents at issue there are US 10,965,063; 10,446,983; 10,038,284; and 9,225,083 (IPR2022‑00718 through ‑00721). Source: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf and the PTAB filing identifying the challenged patents. I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry naming US 9,711,917, but docket coverage is not exhaustive, so treat that as a negative search result rather than a certainty.

Bibliographic Data

Conflict flag: Google Patents’ status line reads Expired – Fee Related (fetched 2026‑09‑29), while third‑party aggregator RPX listed it as "Active Grant." I have not confirmed the fee status directly at USPTO Patent Center, so the maintenance‑fee status is uncertain. Treat the Google Patents "Expired – Fee Related" label as recorded but unverified.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A connector including coupling and sleeve flanges defining opposing recesses separated by an axial gap along an elongate axis. The connector also includes a conductive band radially biased outwardly against at least one of the internal contact surfaces of the opposing recesses and spanning the axial gap. The conductive band maintains electrical conductivity across the axial gap even when the sleeve does not electrically contact the coupling member. At least one of the contact surfaces defines a conical surface which is responsive to the radially biased conductive member to produce a radial force against the internal contact surfaces. The radial force produces an axial force component along the elongate axis."

Field / Problem Addressed

The patent concerns F‑type style coaxial cable connectors. The core problem: when the coupling nut (nut) is not tightly seated on an interface port, the sleeve/body and the coupling nut may lose electrical contact, breaking the ground/RF‑shield path and degrading the connection. The disclosure (a continuation‑in‑part of the "conductive seal" application) covers several continuity solutions — a conductive elastomeric O‑ring, a coil spring, a flat arcuate band, and a "hybrid" band/coil with inclined surfaces — all spanning the axial gap between the sleeve and coupling member. The independent claims, however, are directed to the band (claims 1 and 4) and to a conical‑surface conductive member that also generates an axial biasing force (claim 18).

Independent Claims in Plain Language

Claim 1 (narrowest of the three, "band" embodiment)
A coaxial cable connector with:

• a post having a first flange and an elongate axis;
• an outer sleeve around the post with a second flange, the post and sleeve together retaining the cable end;
• a coupling member with a third flange, sitting around the forward end of the post and sized to fit at least partly between the first and second flanges;
• the sleeve and coupling‑member flanges form opposing recesses with internal contact surfaces separated by an axial gap; each recess also has an outwardly facing contact surface that, with its internal contact surface, defines a radial gap; the internal contact surfaces are radially equidistant from the axis at the axial gap; and
• an arcuate conductive band biased radially outward against the internal contact surfaces — touching each internal contact surface to bridge the axial gap and touching at least one outwardly facing contact surface to bridge the radial gap — so conductivity is maintained across both gaps even when the sleeve is not electrically touching the coupling member.

Claim 4 (broader "band" claim)
Same post / outer sleeve / coupling member / recess‑with‑axial‑gap architecture, plus a conductive band radially biased outwardly against the internal contact surfaces and spanning the axial gap so electrical conductivity is maintained even when the sleeve does not electrically contact the coupling member. It omits the claim‑1 limitations on the radial gap, the "arcuate" shape, and the radial equidistance.

Claim 18 (axial‑biasing "conical surface" claim)
Same three‑component architecture, where the recesses define internal contact surfaces separated by an axial gap and at least one internal contact surface is a conical (sloped) surface. Instead of requiring a band, it recites a conductive member that:

1. produces a radial force against the internal contact surfaces, generating an axial force component along the elongate axis;
2. spans the axial gap to maintain electrical conductivity even when the sleeve is not electrically contacting the coupling member; and
3. constantly biases the third flange of the coupling member against the first flange of the post, thereby urging the post against the interface port (i.e., a spring‑loaded, self‑tightening ground path).

Notable Dependent Claims

• Claims 2, 3, 15, 16 — an annular seal (elastomer O‑ring, radially inboard of the band) between the coupling‑member flange and the post flange (the carry‑over of the conductive‑seal parent).
• Claim 8 — the band is substantially C‑shaped; claim 9 — the band is a flat arcuate spring extending only partially around the annular recess.
• Claims 11–13 — the band also bridges the radial gap, with band ends contacting the recess internal contact surfaces and an intermediate portion contacting an outwardly facing surface.
• Claim 14 — band made of resilient material with a conductive coating on its outwardly facing surface.
• Claim 17 — the conical internal contact surface converts the band’s radial force into an axial component that biases the coupling‑member flange against the post flange.
• Claim 19 — the conductive member is a band whose surface complements the conical surface.
• Claim 20 — the conductive member is a coil spring sized oversized relative to the recess, deforming radially to generate the axial force component.

Specification support for claims 17–20 comes from FIGS. 12a–14; the specification defines "conical surface" as "any frustoconical, sloping or inclined surface capable of producing an axial component of force when reacting a radial force," and gives an angle α of about 30°–60° for the inclined contact surface, with the hybrid band 70H optionally formed from a copper alloy (copper/tin/steel) or a conductively coated thermoplastic.

Classification

H01R 24/38; H01R 9/05; H01R 9/03; H01R 4/48; H01R 2103/00 (coaxial/electrically‑conductive connections, spring/clamped connections).

Uncertainty / Caveats

• No confirmed CAFC 2026 docket activity for US 9,711,917. The prominent 2026 PPC/Amphenol Rule 36 affirmance involves four different patents (see above).
• Maintenance‑fee status conflict between Google Patents ("Expired – Fee Related") and RPX ("Active Grant"); not independently verified.
• Family attribution: the ‑521 and ‑992 continuations carry the different title "Grounding member for coaxial cable connector"; whether every claim of those is fully supported by this disclosure is outside the scope of what I verified.
• Inventor/assignee/date data in the table are corroborated by the Google Patents record for US 9,711,917 (fetched 2026‑09‑29) and the Justia/RPX reproductions of the same front‑matter and claims; I did not retrieve an original USPTO Patent Center PDF for this specific patent.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9711917 across patent litigation databases.

The initial searches returned irrelevant results (note: "9711917" also matches the PCT application number "US9711917 W" for an unrelated flat panel display patent, and an unrelated '191 patent from an Allergan ANDA case). Let me refine with the assignee and litigation-specific databases.

Let me search more targeted sources including the Unified Patents portal and specific case databases.

I hit a tool step limit, but let me try one final targeted query before summarizing.

I'll verify the ODP signal with targeted searches before reporting.

No proceeding surfaced yet. Let me run narrower queries to be sure I'm not missing anything (e.g., a Unified Patents challenge or an IPR against the sibling patent).

Let me check the patent's litigation footprint and its family members for any proceedings.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,711,917: zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block reports no AIA trial proceeding from the USPTO Open Data Portal, and four independent web searches (patent number as text, petitioner-name searches, and family-member searches) surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is the opposite of a hardened patent: 9,711,917 is an untested patent — no claim has ever been adjudicated by the Board, no claim has been canceled, and no estoppel attaches to anyone. The upside is that every § 102/§ 103 ground remains available to a future petitioner; the downside is that you get no free invalidity findings and no ready-made stays argument from an existing FWD.

No proceedings found — detail and corroboration

I could not produce the per-proceeding entries the standard template calls for, because there are none. What follows is what I did verify, so the absence is documented rather than assumed.

• Canonical source (ODP): the structured block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest. Treated as authoritative.
• Search corroboration (2026-09-29):
  • Query for "9,711,917" / "US 9,711,917" PTAB returns only third-party citations to the patent in unrelated references — no petition, institution decision, or FWD.
  • The only true "917 patent" IPRs that surface are for different patents: e.g., IPR2019-00973 (Microsoft v. Uniloc, U.S. 7,075,917) and the Centripetal 917 appeal (U.S. 10,193,917). Neither concerns US 9,711,917. Flagging this explicitly because the number collision is the single likeliest source of a fabricated "there was an IPR" conclusion — there was not.
  • The family table on the Google Patents page for US 9,711,917 lists only the two child continuations US 10,707,629 and US 11,283,226 — no litigation or PTAB events of record.
• Assignee context (not proceedings against this patent): PPC Broadband is a serial PTAB participant on other connector patents — Corning Gilbert's IPR2013-00342/‑00346/‑00347 against PPC patents, PerfectVision's IPR2016-01570/‑01572 against U.S. 8,366,481, and PPC's own IPR2022-00946 against Times Fiber. This confirms PPC's patents are routinely challenged and that PPC has deep PTAB counsel. It does not evidence any challenge to 9,711,917.

One factual observation from the primary source, not a legal conclusion: the Google Patents legal-status field for this patent reads verbatim "Expired - Fee Related", with an "Anticipated expiration" of 2032-05-23 (the latter is the statutory date, not the actual lapse date); the same status appears against the child continuations US 10,707,629 and US 11,283,226 in the family table. "Expired - Fee Related" on that site typically denotes lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees. I have not independently confirmed this against USPTO Patent Center fee records and you must not rely on it without doing so — if true it is dispositive in a way no IPR could be; if it reflects a data artifact it is a trap. Verify before you build anything on it.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 20 claims UNTESTED. Claims 1–3 (post / outer sleeve / coupling member with first, second and third flanges; face-to-face recesses; internal contact surfaces separated by an axial gap; an arcuate conductive band radially biased outwardly and spanning the axial gap and radial gap) are exactly as issued. No claim of 9,711,917 has been canceled or confirmed by the Board. There is no "surviving claim" subset to report and no cancelled-claim set to exploit. Note that claim 3 and claim 16 both recite the annular seal "disposed radially inboard of the arcuate conductive band," and claim 17 recites the conical-surface axial-bias feature that is the disclosure's stated point of novelty — those are the limitations any invalidity theory will have to reach.

Estoppel landscape: empty. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is petitioner-specific and attaches only after a final written decision on grounds raised or reasonably raisable. Because no IPR was filed or instituted, no party is estopped on any ground as to 9,711,917. You retain the full § 102/§ 103 prior-art universe, including printed publications, patents, and public-use/on-sale evidence (subject to the § 311(b) limits on IPR — printed publications and patents only), plus § 112 written-description/enablement theories in district court that IPR cannot reach. Practically, this also means the prior art asserted against PPC's other connector patents by Corning Gilbert and PerfectVision is fair game here without estoppel risk, since none of it was adjudicated against this patent.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner, no patent-owner PTAB appeal, no defensive aggregator in the chain — there is no chain. The patent's priority date (2011-05-26, via the 2011-05-26 provisional and CIP of US 13/479,123) and its issuance on 2017-07-18 mean the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of a complaint on your client, not from patent issuance, so the clock has not started for anyone not yet sued. PPC's litigation posture is highly active (Delaware campaigns against Amphenol, CommScope, Charles Industries; the long-running Corning and PerfectVision disputes), so the realistic risk is that this patent gets pulled into an existing or new PPC assertion rather than that it attracts a standalone IPR.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the lapse first. Before anything else, pull the fee history for US 9,711,917 at USPTO Patent Center and confirm the maintenance-fee status behind the "Expired - Fee Related" label on the Google Patents record. If the 7.5-year (and/or 3.5-year) fee went unpaid, the enforceable-term analysis changes fundamentally and a reinstitution petition under 35 U.S.C. § 41(c) / 37 C.F.R. § 1.378 may be the patent owner's only path — date everything from the actual lapse and any subsequent petition.
2. Confirm the PTAB record yourself before relying on the absence. Query PTAB E2E and the USPTO PTAB Decisions page by patent number, and the Unified Patents portal record for US-9711917-B2, on the date you file anything. Also confirm the ODP ingest date — a recently filed petition could postdate it.
3. If you are served, calendar § 315(b) immediately and note there is no FWD to lean on for a stay. With no PTAB track record on these claims, a stay motion rests on ordinary factors, not on an existing institution.
4. Because there are no proceedings, there is no FWD, no institution decision, no appeal docket, and no settlement to link. I will not manufacture citations for documents that do not exist. If a proceeding is filed after the ODP ingest date, the triggers to watch are: petition filing date, the § 314(b) three-month institution-decision deadline, and the statutory one-year trial clock from institution under § 316(a)(11) to FWD.
5. Do not confuse this patent with the "917" patents above. Any internal memo citing "the '917 IPR" should be corrected to identify U.S. 7,075,917 (Uniloc), U.S. 10,193,917 (Centripetal/Keysight), or U.S. 9,138,917 — none of which is US 9,711,917.

Confidence note: high confidence on "no AIA trial proceedings on file" (primary source plus corroborating searches). Lower confidence on the maintenance-fee lapse, which is sourced to a single third-party structured field and needs USPTO Patent Center confirmation.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9711917, starting with the assignee and any litigation/assertion history.

Let me dig into the assignment records, the assignee's corporate history, and litigation involving this patent family.

Let me search the assignment database and verify the inventor list, plus check whether the '917 patent itself was asserted.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 9,711,917 B2

Patent: US 9,711,917 B2 — "Band spring continuity member for coaxial cable connector"
App: 14/920,150, filed 2015-10-22; issued 2017-07-18; priority 2011-05-26 (prov. 61/490,373) via CIP of 13/479,123
Note on identifier collision: as flagged in the earlier litigation section of this analysis, the string "9711917" also matches PCT application US9711917 W (spacer structures for a flat panel display, priority 1996) and an unrelated Allergan '191 patent. Neither is related to this asset; all statements below concern only US 9,711,917 B2.

Inventors

Both named inventors are recorded as assignors to PPC Broadband, Inc. in the single recorded assignment (below). There is no evidence of inventor departure followed by a portfolio fire-sale — the assignment runs inventor→operating company, and the family has never left PPC/Belden.

Discrepancy to flag (not resolved): the third-party aggregator patents-review.com lists a third name — "Randall A. Holliday, Broomfield, CO" — in the inventor field for publication US2016/0036174A1. The authoritative full patent text (front page, Google Patents) lists only Montena and Parker. I could not confirm Holliday as a co-inventor and I do not assert it. Notably, a "Randall A. Holliday" appears in PPC's litigation history as an adverse party (named with International Communications Manufacturing Corp. and Belden in John Mezzalingua Associates v. ICM Corp., Randall A. Holliday, and Belden, W.D. Wis. 3:11-cv-00424; and as a plaintiff against PPC in Arris International and Randall A. Holliday v. John Mezzalingua Associates, D. Colo. CA 01-WM-2061). This makes the aggregator's inventor listing look like an indexing artifact rather than a genuine third inventor — treat it as unverified.

Original assignee

PPC Broadband, Inc. (East Syracuse, NY; legally formerly doing business as PPC, the broadband division of John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.).

• Products: PPC is a genuine manufacturer of coaxial/RF connectivity hardware — patented F-connectors such as Snap-N-Seal and EXO Compression connectors, hardline connectors, splitters, taps, filters, amplifiers. PPC's own product material states it ships compression connectors that read on connector-continuity claims of this type. This is a product-shipping operating company, not a licensing vehicle.
• Business: Developer/manufacturer of end-to-end fiber and copper connectivity for broadband and wireless service providers; HQ at 6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, NY (founded 1942/1944 depending on source).
• Current status: operating, wholly owned subsidiary of Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC). Belden announced the acquisition of PPC (division of John Mezzalingua Associates) on 2012-12-11 for ~$515.7M. Belden has stated in PTAB mandatory notices that "PPC Broadband, Inc. is wholly owned by Belden, Inc." (e.g., IPR2022-01523, U.S. 7,118,416). The '917 patent therefore issued (2017) into a Belden-owned operating subsidiary, three years after the acquisition closed.
• Not dissolved / not bankrupt. No Chapter 7/11 event.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center data underlying Google Patents' legal-events tab shows one post-filing assignment for US 14/920,150. I was not able to retrieve the reel/frame number or the recorded correspondent from the sources available to me; I am not going to invent them.

• Execution date: not stated in available records / recorded 2016-05-17 — Reel not retrievable (Assignment Center lookup by patent number required)
  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)" (Google Patents designates it a reassignment)
  • Assignor: Noah P. Montena; Robert M. Parker
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc., East Syracuse, NY
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the available sources. For context, the prosecution agent of record for the application is Barclay Damon, LLP (regional general-practice firm, Syracuse NY HQ) per third-party application data — a routine operating-company prosecution firm, not a known NPE-recording mill. I could not confirm that Barclay Damon also served as the assignment correspondent; treat as unclear.
  • Context: Routine inventor-to-employer assignment (obligation-to-assign at hiring). This is the only recorded transfer in the chain; it precedes issuance and precedes every suit in the family.

No further recorded assignments. There is no post-issuance assignment to any LLC, no security interest, no merger conveyance, no correction, and no release on the '917 record. The same is true for the family continuations that Google Patents tracks as children of this disclosure:

So the entire chain of title ends where it started: with the original operating assignee (now Belden-owned).

Verification links: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 9,711,917); mirror index — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html; Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9711917B2](/patent/US9711917B2)/en

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9711917
    1942 : PPC founded in East Syracuse NY
    2011 : Provisional filed by Montena and Parker
    2012 : Parent CIP filed by PPC
    2012 : PPC acquired by Belden for 515M USD
    2015 : This application filed as CIP
    2016 : Assignment recorded to PPC Broadband
    2017 : Patent issued to PPC Broadband
    2022 : PPC asserts connector family

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The sole recorded link (recorded 2016-05-17) runs inventors → PPC Broadband, Inc., an identified operating manufacturer at a real factory address (6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, NY). No "IP / Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" suffix appears anywhere in the chain, and neither the '917 nor either continuation has been assigned to any such entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Current/sole assignee PPC Broadband, Inc. (Belden, Inc.) does not appear on NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities). PPC is a frequent plaintiff, but as a manufacturing competitor — a different category.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT A FINDING (unclear). There is only one link, so recurrence cannot be tested. Prosecution agent of record is Barclay Damon, LLP — a brick-and-mortar regional firm, one appearance only, not on any NPE-assertion list. Assignment correspondent not retrieved; unclear.
4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. One assignment in the entire chain; zero consecutive LLC-to-LLC transfers within 24 months; no shared-address clustering.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The assignment (recorded 2016-05-17) predates both issuance (2017-07-18) and the later family suits; and PPC's enforcement campaign began years before the '917 even existed (e.g., ITC Inv. 337-TA-650, instituted 2008; JMA v. PCT International, W.D. Tex. 5:09-cv-00410, 2009). There is no transfer engineered within six months of a suit on this patent.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. The only ownership event for the corporate parent is a healthy, all-cash merger/acquisition (Belden/PPC, announced 2012-12-11, ~$515.7M). No Chapter 7/11, no §363 sale, no docketed patent auction.
7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. PPC asserts patents in its own name (and its d/b/a "PPC"), not through an off-book NPE asserting on its behalf. Suits include PPC Broadband v. Corning Gilbert / Corning Optical Communications RF (N.D.N.Y. 5:11-cv-00761; 5:13-cv-01310; ITC 337-TA-938), PPC v. PCT International (N.D.N.Y. 5:13-cv-0135; W.D. Tex. 5:09-cv-00410), PPC v. Times Fiber (N.D.N.Y. 5:13-cv-460), PPC v. Amphenol (IPRs 2022-00718/00719/00720/00721), and PPC v. PerfectVision (E.D. Ark. 4:22-cv-00204). No SEC filing or coverage discloses a transfer-to-asserter.
8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Both continuations show "Expired – Fee Related," meaning PPC/Belden let them lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees — the opposite of neutralization-by-aggregation.)

Caveat on assertion of this patent: the family was litigated aggressively, but I did not find direct evidence in the available results that the '917 specifically was pleaded in a complaint. What is documented is that PPC broadened the family via the '629 and '226 continuations, and that the '226 appears in the PPC v. PCT International, N.D.N.Y. 5:13-cv-0135 record. Treat "the '917 was asserted" as unconfirmed; treat "the assignee enforces this family against competitors" as confirmed.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The single recorded assignment (Google Patents legal events, recorded 2016-05-17) conveys US 14/920,150 from inventors Montena and Parker to PPC Broadband, Inc., a genuine East Syracuse, NY manufacturer of the coaxial F-connectors that embody these claims; PPC sits wholly inside Belden, Inc. following Belden's ~$515.7M acquisition announced 2012-12-11. Every NPE tell is absent — no shell-entity LLC, no known asserter, no cascading transfers, no bankruptcy sale, no aggregator terminus — and the family was enforced in PPC's own name against actual competitors (Corning, PCT International, Times Fiber, Amphenol, PerfectVision). Confidence in the ownership conclusion is high; note only that I could not retrieve the reel/frame or recorded correspondent and could not confirm that the '917 itself (as opposed to its continuations) was pleaded in a suit.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent 9,711,917) and https://patents.google.com/patent/US9711917B2/en

I'll verify the patent and dig into its cited prior art. Let me run targeted searches in parallel.

Let me investigate the most likely anticipatory references in the citation list.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,711,917 B2 ("Band spring continuity member for coaxial cable connector")

Note on scope and a correction to the task framing. Before the analysis, two framing points that materially affect the answer:

1. The record I could reach is the USPTO data as mirrored by Google Patents / Justia / Unified Patents, not the USPTO Patent Center interface directly. My tool budget was exhausted before I could open Patent Center or Patent Public Search. The bibliographic and citation data below therefore come from the Google Patents record for US 9,711,917 (fetched 2026‑09‑29), Justia's reproduction of the same file, Espacenet, and PTAB filings. Treat front‑page "References Cited" designations (examiner vs. applicant vs. third‑party) as unverified.
2. There is no such thing as "each patent citation" here in any practical sense. The Google Patents record for US 9,711,917 lists 661 cited references (a 19th‑century‑to‑2010s union of U.S. patents, foreign patents, and NPL). What follows is a prioritization of the references that can actually bear on the granted claims, with an explicit statement of which claim limitations each one does and does not reach.

Also flagging a consistency issue with the previously generated sections: the header of this task says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the fetched source and the earlier sections are dated 2026‑09‑29. I have used the source‑fetch date for the record; the discrepancy does not change any substantive conclusion.

1. The patent as it exists in the USPTO data

This is the same patent identified as USPTO 9,711,917 (application 14/920,150) — not the unrelated "US9711917 W" PCT number or the unrelated '191 patents that pollute keyword searches.

2. The § 102 date problem — which claims get which prior-art date

This is the single most important issue for any anticipation analysis, and it is specific to this file:

• US 9,711,917 is a continuation‑in‑part of 13/479,123 ("Coaxial cable connector with conductive seal"). The new matter added in the CIP is the "hybrid band"/inclined‑surface subject matter of FIGS. 12a–14 (the conical internal contact surface 92, band 70H with complementary surface 95, angle α of 30°–60°, coil spring 70C).
• Therefore:
  • Claims 1–16 (band spanning axial/radial gaps; annular seal) are, on their face, supported by the 2012 parent and carry the 2011‑05‑26 / 2012‑05‑23 priority — pre‑AIA § 102 governs.
  • Claims 17–20 depend on the conical‑surface / axial‑bias subject matter that appears only in the CIP's new matter. If the parent does not contain that disclosure, those claims carry a 2015‑10‑22 effective filing date and fall under AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). I could not retrieve 13/479,123's full specification in this session, so this is a flag, not a finding.

The consequence: art that is "old" for claims 1–16 (anything before ~2011) is not necessarily prior art for claims 17–20 in the same way, and art published in 2011–2015 (e.g., 2014/0148051, the Corning Gilbert Bence continuation publication) may be available against the CIP‑only claims but not against claims 1–16.

3. Ranked prior art — the references that actually matter

3.1 Bence et al. (Corning Gilbert) — "Electrical connector with grounding member" — the most material reference

Anticipation assessment — Claim 1: No clean § 102 anticipation. Bence's grounding member is disposed between the post shoulder and the coupler, and its retaining recess is in the coupler — not in a sleeve flange / coupling‑flange pair of opposing recesses with internal contact surfaces separated by an axial gap and outwardly facing surfaces defining a radial gap. The claim‑1 "outwardly facing contact surface … radial gap" and "internal contact surfaces radially equidistant … at the location of the axial gap" limitations have no counterpart in Bence. This is a § 103 reference, not a § 102 reference, for claim 1.

Claim 4: Same conclusion, same missing limitations (flange recesses on sleeve and coupling member). Strong § 103, not § 102.

Claim 18: This is Bence's closest hit. Bence's compressed resilient member between the post's radial shoulder face and the coupler's flange does "constantly bias" the coupler/post relationship and is expressly aimed at maintaining grounding when the coupler is loose. What Bence lacks is the conical surface that converts the radial force into an axial force component (the "conical surface" definition in the '917 spec). Bence is therefore the primary § 103 reference for claim 18 when combined with any inclined‑surface/spring art.

Timing check: the 2007 publication and the 2006/2009 patents are prior art to all claims. US 7,955,126 (2011) and US 8,172,612 (2012) would only be § 102(a)(2)/§ 102(e)‑type art against the CIP‑only claims (17–20), and only if the Bence disclosure relied upon is the earlier‑filed subject matter.

3.2 Holliday / Wong, US 5,975,949 — "Crimpable connector for coaxial cable" — the reference the patent itself cites

Anticipation assessment: None. Because claim 4/1/18 are not anticipated, the dependent seal claims 2, 3, 15, 16 cannot be anticipated either (they incorporate the independent claim). Independently, Holliday's seal sits between the sleeve and coupling member, not "interposing the third flange of the coupling member and the first flange of the post," and there is no conductive band. It is a § 103/§ 112‑support reference and the acknowledged starting point, nothing more.

3.3 Holliday, US 5,501,616 and the "sealing rings" line — cited in the specification

Anticipation assessment: None as to any claim. These are structural/background references for the cable‑gripping portion, not for the band/axial‑gap continuity structure.

3.4 Youtsey, US 6,712,631 and Palinkas, US 6,716,062 — the continuity/grounding "flange‑to‑port" line

These two are heavily used in the third‑party reexamination/IPR record against related PPC/Corning continuity patents (I retrieved PTAB petition excerpts discussing them: Palinkas's flange 26 making metal‑to‑metal contact with the port's threaded shaft 56 and Youtsey's connector with O‑rings 82/84 and a redundant conductive ground path).

Anticipation assessment: None as to claims 1, 4, 18. These references teach a compressible conductive member at the post/coupler interface or a metal‑to‑metal post‑to‑port seal — not an arcuate band bridging an axial gap and a radial gap between opposing recesses in a sleeve flange and a coupling flange. They are § 103 references for the "constant ground path when the nut is loose" concept and for the "bias the post against the port" concept in claim 18.

3.5 The classical "grounding ring / EMI spring" references (1960s–1980s)

These appear on the '917 face and are the closest structural analogues to an "arcuate conductive band bridging a gap between two connector members":

Anticipation assessment: None. These are grounding/EMI springs for shell‑to‑shell or ring‑to‑ring contact in different connector architectures. They do not disclose the '917 post/outer‑sleeve/coupling‑member flange geometry, the pair of face‑to‑face recesses, or the radial‑gap/axial‑gap joint. They are supporting § 103 art for the "resilient conductive band across a connector interface" idea and for the spring‑member limitations.

4. Bottom‑line § 102 table

No single reference in the located set discloses every element of independent claim 1, 4, or 18. The realistic invalidity theory is § 103: Bence (resilient conductive grounding member maintaining a ground path when the nut is loose, including the post‑shoulder/coupler‑flange compression embodiment) as the primary reference, combined with (a) a coaxial connector having a conductive outer sleeve/body with a flange (e.g., the Burris/Holliday continuity line already in the record) to supply the sleeve‑flange recess, and (b) an inclined/wave‑ or coil‑spring reference (Mattingly '547, or the coil‑spring embodiment already in the '917 specification) to supply the conical surface that converts radial force to axial force for claims 17–20.

5. What I could not verify (stated explicitly rather than guessed)

• The examiner‑cited subset. Google Patents' 661 references are a union of examiner, applicant, and third‑party citations. I could not obtain the front page's ISR/"References Cited" breakdown, so I cannot say which of these were the examiner's § 102/§ 103 rejections of record.
• The Horak reference. PTAB filings in the related PPC/Amphenol and Corning IPRs discuss a "Horak" reference (a connector with a conductive, compressible rubber ring between the outer body and inner post, plus a metal‑to‑metal post/port seal). I could not confirm its patent number or that it appears on the '917 face in this session, so I have deliberately not assigned it a citation or a claim mapping.
• Whether 13/479,123 contains the FIGS. 12a–14 subject matter. This governs whether claims 17–20 are pre‑AIA or AIA, and it is the pivot of any § 102 date analysis. Unresolved.
• The maintenance‑fee status conflict noted in the earlier section (Google "Expired – Fee Related" vs. RPX "Active Grant") remains unresolved; it does not affect validity analysis but is relevant to enforceability.
• No confirmed CAFC 2026 activity specific to US 9,711,917 (consistent with the prior section's negative search result).

Practical recommendation: if a validity opinion is needed, the productive next steps are (1) pull the actual 13/479,123 specification to fix the priority date of claims 17–20, (2) pull the Patent Center "References Cited" tab for 14/920,150 to isolate examiner‑cited art, and (3) run a focused § 103 analysis on Bence '734/′990 + a sleeve‑flange continuity reference + an inclined‑surface spring reference against claims 1, 4, and 18.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art record for US 9,711,917 before reasoning about § 103 combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,711,917 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Built on the prior sections (bibliographic verification, "no AIA proceedings on file," the maintenance‑fee conflict). This section does not repeat those; it takes them as given. All claim text below is quoted from the patent as reproduced on the page.

Scope / sourcing note (important): Your instruction is to use "the results from the Prior Art section of this page." On the Google Patents record for US 9,711,917 that section is three blocks —

Two limitations on my analysis, stated up front so nothing is assumed:

1. The 661‑citation list as rendered in the material I was given truncates at US 5,215,477 A (1993‑06‑01). I directly inspected ~330 references (1885–1993). The post‑1993 remainder — including US 5,501,616 and US 5,975,949, which the specification itself cites in its Background — was not visible to me in the page text, but both are of record in the patent's own description, so I treat them as prior art of record. Any conclusion below about the post‑1993 portion of the list is flagged as needing confirmation against the full list.
2. I treat "Cited By" references as non‑art despite them appearing on the page. If anyone cites Corning's US 10,290,958 or the PPC children as "prior art to 9,711,917," that is an error.

1. Threshold issue that controls everything: which claims get which priority date

US 14/920,150 is a continuation‑in‑part of US 13/479,123 (filed 2012‑05‑23, now US 9,203,167). A CIP gets the benefit of the parent only for subject matter disclosed in the parent. The parent (per the Cross‑Reference in this patent's own description, and per the family data in the earlier section) is the "COAXIAL CABLE CONNECTOR WITH CONDUCTIVE SEAL" application — the FIGS. 1–11 seal/spring/band embodiments.

FIGS. 12a–14 and the "conical surface / axial bias" disclosure were added by the CIP. That is the disclosure that supports claims 17–20, and claim 18's entire "constantly biasing … to urge the post against an interface port" limitation.

Consequence for § 103: If claims 17–20 are entitled only to the 2015‑10‑22 filing date of 14/920,150, then the entire 2011–2014 "continuity member" prior art (including the PPC‑family patents listed on the Unified Patents portal for this patent — US 8,287,320, US 8,337,229, US 8,433,522, US 8,480,431, US 8,840,448, US 8,857,251, US 8,925,851, US 8,161,636, US 8,484,320 — and Corning's US 8,172,612 / US 9,178,290‑family) shifts from "possibly antedated" to squarely available § 102(a)(1)/§ 102(b) art. That is a materially different — and much larger — prior‑art universe than if the 2011‑05‑26 date applies.

Note that common ownership does not save these claims. Pre‑AIA § 103(c) and AIA § 102(b)(2)(C) only disqualify art that is prior art solely under § 102(e)/(g) or § 102(a)(2) (i.e., earlier‑filed applications/patents). A patent that issued more than one year before 2015‑10‑22 is § 102(b)/§ 102(a)(1) art and is not removed by PPC's common ownership. So the priority question is the single highest‑leverage invalidity issue on this patent, and I would run it down before drafting any ground. (The same question decides whether the parent US 9,203,167 itself is § 102(b) art to claims 17–20 — it issued 2015‑12‑01, which is after 2015‑10‑22, so it would be § 102(e)/(a)(2) art, which common ownership would disqualify. Each reference needs its own date check.)

2. The person of ordinary skill (POSITA)

For a 2011‑first‑filed F‑connector case: a mechanical/electrical engineer with a bachelor's degree and roughly 2–4 years of experience designing coaxial cable connectors, or equivalent; familiar with (a) the post/body/nut ("coupler") architecture of F‑connectors; (b) crimp/compression cable retention; (c) the industry's grounding/EMI‑shielding requirements (return‑path continuity and RF‑ingress prevention); and (d) "continuity member" / "instant ground" solutions that maintain the ground path when the nut is loose on the port. This level is corroborated by the Corning IPR record (Drs. Mroczkowski and Eldering, Mr. Burris's testimony about the 2004 UltraEase work) retrieved above.

3. The prior art of record, organized by what it teaches

3a. F‑connector architecture with flanges and a seal sitting in a recess between flanges

3b. A resilient conductive band/spring bridging a gap between two conductive connector shells to preserve ground/EMI continuity — the core secondary art

3c. Inclined/conical surfaces converting radial force into an axial component; spring biasing

3d. The reference on the page itself for the coil‑spring variant

Deacon's own background paragraph cites the pre‑existing practice of a "helically coiled conductive spring … interposed between facing surfaces on the mating halves of a connector" (referring to US 3,835,443) — that is the coil‑spring analogue of claim 20, appearing inside the four corners of a reference that is itself cited on this page. (US4470657 text)

4. Claim‑by‑claim § 103 mapping

4.1 Claim 4 (the broadest independent claim) — strong § 103 case

Claim 4 requires only: post w/ first flange + axis; outer sleeve w/ second flange; coupling member w/ third flange at least partially between the first and second flanges; recesses in the sleeve and coupling flanges with internal contact surfaces separated by an axial gap; and a conductive band radially biased outwardly against the internal contact surfaces and spanning the axial gap so conductivity is maintained even when the sleeve does not electrically contact the coupling member.

Ground: McCarthy '949 (or '616) in view of Deacon '657.

The only structural daylight is the claim's specific two‑recess, face‑to‑face geometry with an "internal" and an "outwardly facing" surface defining a radial gap — a geometry not literally laid out in Deacon. That is a dimensional/arrangement difference; it does not change the principle of operation, and Deacon's band already contacts "radially opposite surfaces" of two different conductive members.

4.2 Claim 1 — moderate‑to‑strong § 103 case (narrower than claim 4)

Claim 1 adds: (i) the band is "arcuate"; (ii) each recess has an outwardly facing contact surface that, with its internal contact surface, defines a radial gap; (iii) the internal contact surfaces are "radially equidistant from the elongate axis at the location of the axial gap"; (iv) the band contacts each internal contact surface to span the axial gap and at least one outwardly facing contact surface to span the radial gap.

• (i) arcuate — Deacon's band is a flat stamping "curved into a bracelet shape," i.e., arcuate; Selvin's '790 is an annular ring.
• (ii)/(iii) radial gap + radially equidistant — Deacon's two conductive shells are concentric, separated by a radial clearance; the groove surface and the opposing shell surface sit at essentially the same radius. "Radially equidistant" reads on Deacon's coaxial geometry as a matter of ordinary mechanical design.
• (iv) band spans both the axial and the radial gap — This is the strongest element for the patent. Deacon's fingers are "bowed in axial cross‑section whereby the fingers are adapted to contact radially opposite surfaces of said body portions." A single bowed band contacting a groove surface on one shell and the outer surface of the other is a band bridging an axial offset between two radially opposed surfaces.

Ground: McCarthy + Deacon, optionally + Selvin '790 (radially resilient free end deflecting against telescoping shells) to reinforce the "span the radial gap" limitation.

4.3 Dependent claims

4.4 Claim 18 — the hardest independent claim, but still attackable

Claim 18 needs three things beyond the claim‑4 architecture: (a) a conical internal contact surface; (b) a conductive member whose radial force generates an axial force component along the axis; and (c) that the member "constantly bias[es] the third flange of the coupling member against the first flange of the post to urge the post against an interface port."

• (a)+(b) Come directly from Werth '805: a frusto‑conical conductive wall that is interference‑fit against a mating shell. Geometry alone dictates that the normal reaction on an inclined surface resolves into a radial and an axial component. This is the textbook wedge/cam relationship, and the patent's own specification concedes the concept: "'conical surface' means any frustoconical, sloping or inclined surface capable of producing an axial component of force when reacting a radial force." Reading that definition onto Werth's frusto‑conical interference wall is a short step.
• (c) Is where careful drafting is required. Werth and Deacon are not F‑connectors, so neither literally biases a post against an interface port. The motivation supply chain must come from the known loose‑connector problem: the industry (and PPC's own witnesses, in the Corning IPR record) acknowledged that "some inserted coil springs and other biasing elements between the corresponding flanges of the post and the nut to try to urge the front face of the post into quicker contact with the front face of the port" (Amidon Decl., Ex. 1066). Combine that industry knowledge with Deacon's radially biased band and Werth's conical-seat geometry, and claim 18's functional language follows.

Ground: McCarthy '949 + Deacon '657 + Werth '805 (+ Mattingly '547 for the constant‑force requirement). This is the ground on which I would expect the most fight and the most claim‑construction risk.

5. Motivation to combine — the KSR / Graham articulation

A § 103 ground lives or dies on the "why." Six independent motivations are available here; any two or three can be pleaded in the alternative:

1. Same field of endeavor, same problem. Every reference above is an electrical connector (most are coaxial) addressing grounding/EMI continuity across a connector interface. Deacon's stated problem — "open gaps or windows … preclude optimum shielding against passage of electromagnetic energy in the gap between the mated body shells" — is the same problem the '917 patent opens with (RF ingress/egress at a loose nut). KSR makes same‑field, same‑problem combinations the paradigm case of obviousness.
2. The references themselves supply the suggestion. Deacon proposes its bracelet spring precisely so that continuity survives axial repositioning ("crown … at some arbitrary axial location within the overall annular groove axial dimension") and repeated mating/unmating. McCarthy's coupling member (nut 52) is the component that repositions axially relative to the sleeve as it is tightened and loosened. One of ordinary skill reading Deacon is being told to do exactly what claim 1 recites: put the biased band where two shells can separate.
3. Predictable result. Placing a known resilient conductive spring between two conductive flanges to bridge a gap yields, inevitably, electrical continuity across that gap. No new mechanism is born; the patent does not assert an unexpected result for the band‑in‑flange‑recess arrangement.
4. Design incentives / market pressure. The F‑connector industry's "loose connector" problem — documented in both the patent's Background and the Corning IPR record — supplied a strong, concrete incentive to add a continuity element at the nut/body interface. KSR recognizes market demand as a valid motivation.
5. Explicit identification of a known design choice. Deacon expressly notes the pre‑existing practice of helically coiled conductive springs between facing surfaces of mating halves; the choice between a coil spring (claim 20) and a flat arcuate band (claims 1/4) is a recognized, mechanically straightforward engineering selection with predictable trade‑offs (space, force curve, cost).
6. Werth's conical wall supplies the sloping‑surface suggestion for claims 17–19. Werth already uses a frusto‑conical conductive wall to convert an axial assembly motion into a radial interference load at a connector interface. Reversing that relationship — letting the radial load produce an axial component — is the same geometry used in the opposite direction, and the patent's specification concedes any "inclined/conical surface capable of producing an axial component of force when reacting a radial force" counts.

Caveat I will not paper over: none of the references of record that I inspected is itself an F‑connector with a post flange and a nut flange and a band between them. The "why" therefore depends on combining the F‑connector architecture art (McCarthy '949 / Moss '616) with the connector‑interface continuity‑spring art (Deacon / Selvin / Werth). That bridging is exactly the kind of articulated reasoning KSR permits, but a Rule 11‑grade ground must support it with a POSITA declaration that ties each reference's teaching to each claim limitation.

6. The counterarguments — and why they are weaker here than PPC's wins elsewhere

PPC litigated these theories (against different patents of the family) before the Board and lost the motivation arguments. The Board's reasoning is instructive and, importantly, is not binding on this patent:

• PPC argued that "prior art solutions to the loose connector problem placed grounding members in contact with the post and not the body … thereby demonstrating that a POSITA would have been motivated to (and did) place grounding members in contact with the post, not the body" (IPR2022‑00719 record). The Board disagreed: "We disagree with Patent Owner's contention that the prior art is limited to using a post to extend the grounding shield through a coaxial cable connector." (PTAB record) The same teaching‑away argument is available to PPC here — and the same rebuttal.
• PPC argued No Motivation because the specific coupler‑body location was not suggested. The Board rejected this as "piecemeal." Again, this argument will be re‑run here and will again face the "known problem + known solution" rebuttal.
• Fed. Cir. caution flag: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016), vacated Board findings where the Board failed to make fact findings on the "maintain electrical continuity" limitation and on "shaped to fit" — i.e., the Federal Circuit is sensitive to functional‑language limitations that the Board glossed over. Claim 18's "constantly biasing … to urge the post against an interface port" is precisely this kind of functional limitation. Any ground must make explicit fact findings under this language, or it risks the same vacatur. (CourtListener opinion)
• Secondary considerations are PPC's strongest remaining card: the SignalTight/EXPLUS commercial success, long‑felt need for the loose‑connector fix, and alleged copying (Corning's UltraShield). Note the nexus problem PPC itself created: Corning's Burris testified (Ex. 2020) that Corning shipped an "Instant Ground" continuity connector in its 2004 UltraEase line — before the '917 priority date — which undercuts both novelty of the concept and any nexus between success and the patented feature. (Burris Decl., Ex. 2020)

7. Bottom line

Where I have low confidence and would not file on this record:

1. The post‑1993 portion of the 661‑citation list is invisible to me. The strongest F‑connector‑specific band/spring art (and any pre‑2011 "continuity member" art) sits in that unexamined range. The full list must be pulled before any ground is finalized.
2. The priority/§ 102 date determination in § 1 is the gating question. Resolve it first; if claims 17–20 get only 2015‑10‑22, the analysis above understates the available art considerably.
3. Werth '805 and Deacon '657 are not F‑connectors. The state‑of‑the‑art bridge (F‑connector architecture + connector‑interface continuity spring) is a KSR‑type articulated‑reasoning bridge, not an express suggestion. It needs a POSITA declaration; it will not survive on attorney argument alone.
4. Minor internal inconsistency to flag: the task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the Google Patents fetch stamp on the patent text is 2026‑09‑29, and the earlier sections of this analysis were generated as of that later date. I have used the earlier‑stated April 26, 2026 only as a nominal figure; nothing in the § 103 analysis turns on the difference, but the two dates in the file are not the same and should be reconciled before anything is filed.
5. No AIA proceeding exists on this patent (established in the prior section), so none of the above has been tested by the Board. The "claims 1–3 … are exactly as issued" observation from the earlier section remains the operative starting point: all 20 claims are live until a ground is actually pleaded.