US RE44904

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number and any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me dig into litigation and any 2026 appellate activity.

Let me check for PTAB proceedings and any 2026 appellate activity.

US RE44,904 E — "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection"

Scope note on my research: I grounded the bibliographic and claim data below in the authoritative full text of USRE44904E1 (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-13) and the printed reissue front page (patentimages PDF). For docket checks, my searches covered PACER-derived aggregators (CourtListener, Docket Alarm, Justia Dockets, Unified Patents, RPX) and CAFC reporting. I found no Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket entry or appellate activity involving RE44,904. I cannot rule out an entry that is not indexed in the sources my tools reach, so treat the "no 2026 CAFC activity" finding as a negative search result, not a certification.

---

1. Bibliographic data

Prosecution chain (important for claim interpretation):

• PCT/EP99/10097, filed 1999-12-17 (priority)
• US 10/167,986, filed 2002-06-11 → US 7,027,465 B2, issued 2006-04-11 (continuation)
• US 11/402,621, filed 2006-04-11 → US 7,555,014 B2, issued 2009-06-30 (continuation)
• US 13/171,882, filed 2011-06-29 → RE44,904 E, issued 2014-05-20 (reissue of 11/402,621)

Ownership chain (recorded assignments): Nokia Corporation → Calton Research L.L.C. (2011) → OL Security LLC (merger, 2016) → Intellectual Ventures Assets 130 LLC (2019) → CommWorks Solutions, LLC (2020); a license/corrective assignment to Unwired Solutions, Inc./Unwired Broadband, Inc. was recorded 2020–2022.

Name discrepancy (literal, not auto-corrected): The original US 7,027,465 B2 front page prints the inventor as Petri Hautala; the reissue RE44,904 prints Petri Karhula. A corrective assignment recorded 2011-10-08 ("CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO CORRECT THE INVENTOR LEGAL NAME CHANGE… Assignor: KARHULA, PETRI," Reel 027035/0115) indicates these are the same inventor with a legal name change. I flag this because the two printed names genuinely differ.

---

2. Abstract (verbatim, as printed)

"The invention discloses a method for detecting priority of data frames comprising the steps of extracting (S1) a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a frame, comparing (S2, S3) said extracted bit pattern with a search pattern, and identifying (S4) said received frame as a priority frame in case said extracted bit pattern (BP) matches with said first search pattern (SP). By this method, the priority of a data frame can easily be detected. The invention also proposes a corresponding device for detecting priority of data frames."

---

3. Technical gist

The patent addresses a WLAN (IEEE 802.11) access point that must distinguish high-priority traffic but, sitting at the MAC layer, cannot cheaply parse upper-layer headers. The disclosed approach is a "shallow-inspection" pattern match: an external configuration program determines where a priority-indicating bit pattern lives in the frame, converts that into an offset + search pattern (+ optional mask) information element, and sends it to the AP. The AP then extracts the bits at that offset and compares them to the search pattern, avoiding any header parsing. Detected priority frames are queued ahead of normal traffic in the Contention Free Period (CFP), and the CFP's length/interval is tuned using counters of priority frames (total, outside CFP, and in CFP-containing DTIM intervals).

---

4. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Independent claims are 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18 (2, 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 are dependent).

Claim 1 — Method (detect + queue + adapt)
Extract a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a frame; compare it with a search pattern; if they match, label the received frame a priority frame; if that happens during a special period reserved for priority traffic, forward the frame to a high-priority queue; and adjust the duration of that special period based on statistics about sent priority frames.

Claim 3 — Device (apparatus counterpart of claim 1)
A receiver; an extracter that pulls a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a data frame; a comparator that compares it to a predetermined search pattern; an identifier that flags the frame as priority on a match; and a controller that (i) forwards the frame to a high-priority queue when the frame is detected as priority during the special period, and (ii) adjusts that period's duration per statistical information about sent priority frames.

Claim 5 — Device (means-plus-function)
Same functional elements as claim 1 phrased as "means for" extracting, comparing, identifying, forwarding to a high-priority queue, and adjusting the special period's duration based on statistics.

Claim 6 — Memory / article of manufacture
A memory storing a program that, when executed in a device, carries out the method of claim 1. (Notably, this is written as an independent claim rather than a dependent one.)

Claim 7 — Method (detect + transmit in reserved period + adapt)
Detect that a received frame is a priority frame based at least in part on information in the frame, where the detection includes extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position and comparing it to a search pattern (detection turns on the match); transmit the frame in a transmit period reserved for priority frames in response to the detection; and adjust the reserved period's duration based on statistics regarding sent priority frames.

Claim 10 — Method (detect + transmit in reserved period + fallback)
Detect a priority frame from information in the frame; transmit it in the reserved priority period; adjust the reserved period's duration based on statistics; and forward the frame to a normal queue for transmission outside the reserved period when the reserved period is unavailable. (This captures the specification's "CFP inactive → normal queue; when CFP starts, flush normal queue and move unsent priority frames to priority queue" behavior.)

Claim 11 — Method (statistics by ratio)
Detect a priority frame; transmit in the reserved period; adjust the reserved period's duration based on statistics; count the total number of priority frames and the number transmitted outside the reserved period; adjust based on the ratio of outside-transmitted priority frames to total priority frames.

Claim 12 — Method (statistics by percentage)
Detect a priority frame; transmit in the reserved period; adjust the reserved period's duration based on statistics, where the statistics are based on the percentage of priority frames transmitted outside the reserved period relative to the total number of priority frames transmitted.

Claim 13 — Device (detection via offset/pattern match + queue + adapt)
A controller detects a priority frame from information in the frame; a priority queue transmits the frame in the reserved priority period; the controller adjusts the reserved period's duration based on statistics; and the controller performs the detection by extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position, comparing it to a search pattern, and detecting priority on a match.

Claim 17 — Device (statistics by ratio)
Controller + priority queue as in claim 13, where the controller counts total priority frames and priority frames transmitted outside the reserved period, and adjusts the reserved period based on the ratio of outside-transmitted frames to the total.

Claim 18 — Device (statistics by percentage)
Controller + priority queue as in claim 13, where the statistics are based on the percentage of priority frames transmitted outside the reserved period relative to the total number of priority frames transmitted.

---

5. Litigation posture (2021–2025) and the 2026 CAFC question

• Asserting party: CommWorks Solutions, LLC (Alpharetta, GA; parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC), typically with Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (and Kheyfits Belenky / Stafford Davis in some cases). RE44,904 is asserted alongside US 7,027,465, 7,177,285, 7,463,596, 7,911,979, 6,891,807, 6,832,249 and 9,554,304.
• Representative suits naming RE44,904 (from PACER-derived records):
  • CommWorks v. Comcast Cable, W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00366 (filed 2021)
  • CommWorks v. Mediacom, S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-07529
  • CommWorks v. ADTRAN, N.D. Ala. 5:23-cv-01327 (filed 2023-10-03)
  • CommWorks v. Extreme Networks, W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00835
  • CommWorks v. CommScope/ARRIS, E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00510 — dismissed with prejudice
  • CommWorks v. DrayTek, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00024 (2025-01-13); v. AVM, 2:25-cv-00026 (dismissed without prejudice 2025-06-19); v. VTech, 2:25-cv-00433 (2025-04-24); v. Texas Instruments, 2:25-cv-00439; v. EarthLink, 2:25-cv-00716 (dismissed)
  • CommWorks v. Marvell, W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00354 (dismissed without prejudice); v. STMicroelectronics, 7:25-cv-00363 (dismissed 2025-11-03); v. NXP USA, 7:25-cv-00395 (dismissed with prejudice 2025-10-31)
• Infringement theory: Accused products are Wi-Fi chips/APs implementing Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) / 802.11-2007+ QoS, alleged to map a User Priority (UP/TID) bit pattern extracted from the QoS Control field to an EDCA Access Category (AC) "search pattern." Note that this maps to the original '465 claim 1's "offset" limitation; the RE44,904 claims as published instead emphasize the high-priority queue and statistical duration-adjustment features.
• 2026 CAFC dockets: None found. Searches for "RE44904" + Federal Circuit / appeal, and for CommWorks appellate activity, returned no 2026 CAFC docket. A web search for "RE44904 CAFC 2026 docket appeal" returned an empty result set, and a follow-up returned only an unrelated RE40,449 case (Voter Verified v. Premier Election Solutions). I found no PTAB IPR/PGR record for RE44,904 either.

---

6. Data caveats / uncertainty I want to flag explicitly

1. Reissue claim text rendering. The Google Patents claim listing for RE44,904 shows 18 claims with punctuation artifacts (e.g., "in a frame,; comparing…") and, critically, the printed reissue is annotated that "[m]atter enclosed in heavy brackets [ ] appears in the original patent but forms no part of this reissue specification" and italics mark reissue additions. The machine-readable listing does not show those brackets/italics, so the exact metes-and-bounds of the original vs. added reissue matter should be verified against the printed reissue PDF before relying on it for claim-scope analysis. The specification text I have does flag this convention but the claim rendering loses it.
2. Broadening issue. The reissue was filed 2011-06-29, more than two years after the original patent's 2006-04-11 grant. Under 35 U.S.C. § 251(d), a reissue filed after that window may not enlarge claim scope. I note this as legal context with moderate confidence in the statutory rule itself, but I have not independently audited whether any RE44,904 claim is broader than its '465/'514 counterpart — that would require a side-by-side claim comparison of the printed documents.
3. Term/expiry inconsistency. The records state an adjusted expiration of 2020-03-15 and also record a lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees on 2021-08-02. The original '465 carried a 433-day PTA and its 20-year term ran from the 1999-12-17 international filing date. These dates do not obviously reconcile, so I would treat the precise expiry date as unverified. This matters because most RE44,904 suits were filed in 2021–2025, i.e., potentially after expiry, limiting recovery to pre-expiration damages under the § 286 lookback.
4. Current assignee. Google Patents lists "Unwired Broadband Inc" as the current assignee (a license/corrective assignment), while the reissue front page names Calton Research L.L.C. and the enforcement history is in CommWorks Solutions, LLC's name. Which entity holds title vs. an exclusive license as of April 2026 is not something I can confirm from the records I retrieved.
5. No authoritative confirmation of "original assignee" statutory disclaimer — the printed reissue does not carry the disclaimer notice that the '465 did, but I did not retrieve the full reissue front page text to verify.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent RE44904 across patent litigation databases.

Good, I'm finding leads. Let me dig deeper into specific cases.

Let me get the full list from the Stanford NPE database and check for PTAB proceedings.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. RE44,904

Important note on scope. I searched patent-litigation aggregators (Stanford NPE Litigation Database, RPX Insight, CourtListener/RECAP, Dockets.Justia, IPWatchdog, and PACER-derived sources). I was cut off by a search-step limit before I could fully verify every docket, so the entries below reflect what the search results actually showed. Where an outcome was not confirmed, I say so rather than guess.

Key finding: All identified US litigation asserting RE44,904 appears to be plaintiff-side enforcement by CommWorks Solutions, LLC (an NPE affiliated with IP Investments Group / parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC, and later tied to licenses held by Unwired Solutions, Inc. / Unwired Broadband, Inc.). I found no cases in which RE44,904 was asserted by the original assignee (Nokia) or by any other patent owner, and no declaratory-judgment actions naming RE44,904 as the subject patent.

RE44,904 is the reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 7,555,014, which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,027,465 (the '465 patent), from PCT/EP1999/010097 (WO 2001/045328 A1). CommWorks typically asserted RE44,904 together with the '465, '285, '596, '979, '807, '249, '664, and '315 patents.

---

I. 2020 campaign — E.D. Tex. (May 27, 2020)

Source: IPWatchdog roundup (citing 2:20-cv-00159 and the asserted-patent list including RE44904); Stanford NPE Litigation Database.

II. 2020 campaign — S.D.N.Y. (September 2020)

CommWorks filed complaints against cable/telecom providers. The patents-in-suit in this campaign expressly included RE44,904 (the '904 patent), along with the '249, '807, '465, '285, '596, '664, '979, and '315 patents.

Source: The IP Crew report, 09/17/2020. Case numbers not captured before I hit the search limit.

III. 2022 campaign

Sources: Stanford NPE Litigation Database (RE44904 page); IPWatchdog 07/29/2022 roundup; AI-Lab case record for 1:22-cv-02827.

IV. 2023 campaign — W.D. Tex.

Source: Stanford NPE Litigation Database, RE44904 page.

V. 2024–2025 campaign (broader Wi-Fi/WMM enforcement)

Notable detail on the Texas Instruments case: The complaint (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division) alleged pre-suit notice letters dated February 11, 2021 and March 5, 2021 to TI's patent-litigation counsel, identifying the '285, '596, '979, and RE44,904 patents. The case was stayed on notice of settlement (07/08/2025) and dismissed with prejudice on 07/15/2025 — which, per the reporting, forecloses further CommWorks suits against TI on those patents for the accused products.

---

VI. Other proceedings

• Google Patents flags the family as having litigation ("First worldwide family litigation filed"), referencing the Darts-IP family record — consistent with the CommWorks campaigns above.
• IPR / PTAB: I did not confirm any inter partes review, PGR, or other PTAB proceeding specifically challenging RE44,904 before reaching my search-step limit. I cannot rule one out; this should be verified on the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board docket.

---

VII. Caveats and items requiring verification

1. I did not complete exhaustive verification. My searches were truncated. Case numbers for the 2020 S.D.N.Y. Mediacom/RCN suits and several 2022–2023 outcomes were not captured.
2. Outcomes are largely unconfirmed except where a docket entry was retrieved (NextLink closed 07/21/2020; Technicolor closed; TI dismissed with prejudice 07/15/2025; EarthLink and STMicroelectronics voluntary dismissals in late 2025).
3. The patent's own docket shows an unusual posture: Google Patents records an "adjusted expiration" of 2020-03-15 and a lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees on 2021-08-02 (status: "Expired – Fee Related"). CommWorks nevertheless continued filing infringement suits asserting RE44,904 through 2025. Whether those suits were premised on pre-expiration damages periods, on related still-live family members, or on some other theory is a legal question I did not investigate and cannot answer from the retrieved material.
4. Alleged docket numbers should be confirmed against PACER before being relied upon — several of my numbers come from secondary aggregators (RPX, CourtListener/ RECAP, AI-Lab, UniCourt) rather than first-party PACER retrieval.

Bottom line: RE44,904 has been asserted in a substantial series of patent-infringement suits filed by CommWorks Solutions, LLC against Wi-Fi chipset makers and broadband/telecom service providers, beginning in May 2020 (E.D. Tex.), with campaigns in 2020 (E.D. Tex. and S.D.N.Y.), 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. Most appear to have terminated quickly via settlement or voluntary dismissal rather than litigated judgment.

I'll start by verifying the structured block's "no proceedings" signal against public sources, searching both the reissue number and its parent patents.

The structured block reports no proceedings, but let me probe the litigation campaign and any PTAB filings tied to the patent's owners and prior owners.

No IPR surfaced yet. Let me run targeted checks for PTAB filings by number range, and for any Federal Circuit activity.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US RE44904: 0. The canonical structured list returns zero PTAB trials — no active proceedings, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, no institution denials. My independent web probing (PATENT OWNER/assignee names, both the reissue number and the parent patents, and IPR-number-range searches) likewise surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming RE44904, US 7,555,014, or US 7,027,465.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB kill-shot and no PTAB estoppel in either direction. The troll has not been beaten at the Board, and you cannot point to a canceled claim. But the more important defensive fact is not a PTAB one at all: the '904 patent expired 2020-03-15 (Google Patents records status "Expired – Fee Related," adjusted expiration 2020-03-15, with a failure-to-pay-maintenance-fee lapse entry at 2021-08-02). Any demand letter you receive in 2026 is asserting an expired patent; the only live exposure is backward-looking damages on pre-expiration conduct, squeezed by the § 286 six-year lookback.

---

Proceedings on file

None. There is no proceeding to profile. For completeness, the structured record and my searches were checked against:

• US RE44904 E1 (reissue of US 7,555,014; application 13/171,882) — https://patents.google.com/patent/USRE44904/en
• US 7,555,014 B2 (application 11/402,621) — the surrendered original
• US 7,027,465 B2 (application 10/167,986) — the first US member, from PCT/EP1999/010097

Searches for "RE44904" IPR, "7,555,014" inter partes review, "Unwired Broadband" IPR, and "CommWorks Solutions" IPR returned only unrelated RE44,xxx patents — RE44,913 (Philips/Google, keypad), RE44,186 (AstraZeneca/Mylan, saxagliptin), and RE44,884 (Ferno/Stryker, ambulance cot). None involve this patent. I found no Unified Patents, RPX, or other defensive-aggregator filing against RE44904.

Verification note (be honest about limits): my web-search budget was exhausted before I could query USPTO PTAB E2E directly, and the ODP ingest is a snapshot that can lag. Because absence of PTAB art is the fact you will be relying on, confirm it yourself at https://ptab.uspto.gov/ by searching each of the three application numbers (13/171,882; 11/402,621; 10/167,986) and the patent number RE44904. Do not treat this report as a substitute for that docket check.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 18 claims of RE44904 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. Nothing is canceled; nothing is sustained. Claims 1–6 are the method/device claims carrying the queue-adjustment limitations, including means-plus-function claim 5 and the CRM claim 6; claims 7–18 read as a second claim family directed to detecting a priority frame and adjusting the duration of a priority transmit period. Flag for diligence: I could not confirm from the available sources whether claims 7–18 were newly added during the 2014-05-20 reissue grant. If they were, reissue-specific defenses (recapture, and intervening rights under 35 U.S.C. §§ 251–252 for pre-grant activity) deserve a hard look — that analysis requires the reissue file history for 13/171,882, which is not in the material provided.

Estoppel landscape. There is no estoppel. Because no IPR was instituted, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) never attached to any petitioner, and the patent owner has never had to defend a claim at the Board. Practically: (a) no prior-art ground is foreclosed to you by another party's IPR; (b) the full printed-publications and patents art set is available in district court; and (c) you also have the whole of the ex parte reissue prosecution history of 13/171,882 as a prosecution-history-estoppel and § 112 record, which is often where old WLAN reissues get thin.

Pattern signals. The NPE is CommWorks Solutions, LLC (identifying Corporate Parent Brainbox Innovations, LLC in its Rule 7.1 disclosures; frequently grouped with "IP Investments Group"; plaintiff counsel Rozier Hardt McDonough and Kheyfits Belenky). It has run a broad, multi-defendant campaign asserting RE44904 alongside US 6,832,249; 6,891,807; 7,027,465; 7,177,285; 7,463,596; 7,760,664; 7,911,979; and 8,116,315 — against DrayTek (2:25-cv-00024, E.D. Tex.), EarthLink (2:25-cv-00716, E.D. Tex.), STMicroelectronics (7:25-cv-00363, W.D. Tex.), Marvell (7:25-cv-00354, W.D. Tex., voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 2025-10-31), CommScope/ARRIS (2:23-cv-00510, E.D. Tex., dismissed with prejudice on a joint motion stating the parties "have resolved Plaintiff's claims"), Mediacom and RCN (S.D.N.Y.), and a 2025 E.D. Tex. complaint referencing RE44,904. Despite this volume, no defendant anywhere in the chain has filed an IPR against RE44904 or its parents. That is a genuine signal — usually, patents asserted this widely attract at least one petition. Possible explanations: the art is weak, the short remaining term/expired status makes AIA review economically pointless, or every defendant has opted to resolve or wait out the § 286 window. The ownership chain (Nokia → Calton Research LLC → OL Security LLC → Intellectual Ventures Assets 130 LLC → CommWorks Solutions, licensed onward to Unwired Solutions/Unwired Broadband) shows no defensive aggregator involvement.

Appeals. No PTAB FWD exists, therefore no PTAB appeal to the Federal Circuit exists. I found no CAFC docket activity on RE44904. The "Family has litigation" flag on the Google Patents page is a district-court signal, not a PTAB one.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not invalidity. RE44904 expired 2020-03-15 and its maintenance-fee lapse is recorded at 2021-08-02 (https://patents.google.com/patent/USRE44904/en, Legal Events). If you are served in 2025–2026, damages reach back only to six years before service under § 286 and cannot extend past 2020-03-15 — a window that in most cases is already nearly or entirely closed. Injunctive relief is off the table. Demand the patent owner articulate its damages period and the accused pre-2020-03-15 conduct before you spend a dollar on the merits.

2. Treat the § 315(b) one-year clock as optional, not obligatory. You are not competing with a co-defendant's IPR, so there is no estoppel benefit to racing to the Board. And given the patent is expired, an IPR would buy you a validity ruling with no injunction-clearing upside. Unless you need a PTAB win for a co-pending stay motion or an indemnity posture, litigate validity in district court where the art set is unconstrained.

3. If you do consider an AIA filing, verify feasibility first. Confirm at https://ptab.uspto.gov/ that no proceeding exists, then assess whether the Board will institute on an expired patent on the facts of your case and whether the live claims are worth the spend. Do not assume a filing is barred merely because the patent expired — but do the math on value before filing.

4. Pull the reissue file history for application 13/171,882 via https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/13171882 (the link CommWorks itself cites in its complaints). Determine whether claims 7–18 were added or broadened in reissue. If they were, develop a §§ 251–252 intervening-rights defense and a recapture argument immediately; if the accused products are pre-2014-05-20 designs, intervening rights may be dispositive.

5. Distinguish the family. RE44904's claims are narrow — extract a bit pattern at an offset, compare to a search pattern, and adjust the priority transmit period's duration on statistics. Earlier assertions in this campaign have resolved by dismissal (CommScope/ARRIS with prejudice; Marvell without prejudice). Ask for the specific asserted claims and the evidence of use on your products; a non-infringement story on the offset/pattern-match and CFP-duration limitations is likely more cost-effective than an invalidity fight against a 1999 priority date.

I'll cross-check the recorded events against public litigation and assignee data before writing this up.

Good finds. Let me dig into the assignee entities and the recording correspondents.

US RE44904 — Ownership Chain Reconstruction

Patent: US RE44904 E1 ("Method for contention free traffic detection"), reissue of US 7,555,014 (cont. of US 7,027,465, cont. of PCT/EP1999/010097). Priority 1999-12-17; reissue granted 2014-05-20.
Sources used: the Google Patents legal-events feed embedded in the provided full-text record (reel/frame data), plus live litigation/assignee cross-checks (CourtListener, Unified Patents, RPX via Mondaq, IPWatchdog, PACER dockets).

Data limitation stated up front: the Google Patents legal-events feed reproduces reel/frame, conveyance, assignor, assignee and effective dates, but does not expose the "correspondent of record" field for these entries. I have no live USPTO Assignment Center query capability in this session, so I cannot certify a correspondent name for reels 026794/0902, 026794/0956, 027035/0115, 037560/0320, 050886/0662, 051463/0026, 054443/0958, 056981/0631 or 059907/0563. Where I have a directly analogous, separately-sourced correspondent record I flag it as analog, not as this chain's.

---

Inventors

Unusual patterns — findings, with dates:

• Quiet-title cleanup deferred 9 years, then executed the same day as the divestiture. The inventor→Nokia assignment was executed 2002-08-15 but not recorded until 2011-08-23 — the same recording date as the Nokia→Calton Research sale (reel 026794/0956). The record was cleaned up at the point of sale, not at the point of hiring.
• The reissue was filed before the divestiture was recorded. Reissue application 13/171,882 was filed 2011-06-29; the Nokia→Calton assignment was executed 2011-01-13 but recorded 2011-08-23. The reissue prosecution thus began under new (unrecorded) ownership — consistent with the acquirer driving the reissue.
• No information in the assignment records supports or refutes the "inventor departed within 12 months of filing" pattern; there is only one inventor and no employment records in this chain. Not determinable from these sources.

---

Original assignee

Nokia Corporation (Finland) — the applicant on PCT/EP1999/010097 / WO2001045328A1 and the assignee on both issued US patents (7,027,465; 7,555,014).

• Line of business at the time: operating telecommunications equipment vendor (mobile handsets and network infrastructure). The patent's own background frames the invention as an Access Point (AP)-side MAC-layer feature implementing the IEEE 802.11 Point Coordination Function / Contention Free Period, so the claims read on WLAN access point products rather than on handsets.
• Product embodying the claims: I cannot verify from the available records that Nokia shipped a product practicing the claimed bit-pattern priority detection. The claims are AP-implementable and Nokia had WLAN product activity in this era, but I will not assert a specific product without a citation. Treat as unverified.
• Current status: Nokia Corporation is a still-operating network-infrastructure and licensing company. The patent, however, left Nokia in 2011 (executed 2011-01-13; reel 026794/0956).

Note on a misleading Google Patents field: the record lists "Original Assignee: Calton Research LLC." That is a metadata artifact of the reissue being filed in 2011 under Calton's ownership. Read literally, Calton Research LLC is the assignee at the time of the reissue application, not the original assignee — Nokia is.

---

Assignment timeline

Nine recorded events (including corrections). All reel/frame numbers are as reproduced in the Google Patents legal-events feed.

• 2002-08-15 (executed) / recorded 2011-08-23 — Reel 026794/0902

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignor: HAUTALA, PETRI (name later corrected to KARHULA, PETRI)
  • Assignee: Nokia Corporation (Finland)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in source. (See analog note in §3 of the signal table.)
  • Context: Confirmatory/quiet-title assignment of inventor rights to Nokia, executed at filing time but recorded nine years later, on the same day as the sale.

• 2011-01-13 (executed) / recorded 2011-08-23 — Reel 026794/0956

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignor: Nokia Corporation
  • Assignee: Calton Research L.L.C. (Delaware)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in source.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter / portfolio divestiture — the operating vendor exits; a Delaware holding LLC with no products takes title. Filed with the PTO ~7 months after execution.

• 2011-08-22 (executed) / recorded 2011-10-08 — Reel 027035/0115

  • Conveyance: Corrective assignment — "to correct the inventor legal name change previously recorded on reel 026794 frame 0902"
  • Assignor: KARHULA, PETRI
  • Assignee: Nokia Corporation
  • Correspondent: not exposed in source.
  • Context: Change of name only — no change in economic ownership; fixes the Hautala→Karhula discrepancy.

• 2015-08-26 (executed) / recorded 2016-01-22 — Reel 037560/0320

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Calton Research L.L.C.
  • Assignee: OL Security Limited Liability Company (Delaware)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in source. Analog: an assignment abstract for a different patent in the same corporate family (US 6,894,639, reel 066941/0209, produced as IPR2025-00340 Ex. 1064) lists correspondent "Intellectual Ventures Management – IP Legal, 3150 – 139th Ave SE Building 4, 5th Floor, Bellevue, WA 98005." OL Security LLC's own registered address in the EP register is the same 3150 139th Avenue SE, Building 4, Bellevue, WA 98005 — i.e., IV's headquarters address. This is a strong family-level indicator, not a record of this chain's correspondent.
  • Context: Internal reorganization — Calton folded into an IV-linked holding entity.

• 2019-10-30 (executed) / recorded 2019-11-01 — Reel 050886/0662

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignor: OL Security Limited Liability Company
  • Assignee: Intellectual Ventures Assets 130 LLC (Delaware)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in source; IV-family filings in the analog abstract above use IV Management – IP Legal, Bellevue WA as correspondent.
  • Context: Internal reorg / asset drop-down into a numbered IV divestiture vehicle, timed to the 2019 IV sell-off program.

• 2019-11-15 (executed) / recorded 2020-01-03 — Reel 051463/0026

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignor: Intellectual Ventures Assets 130 LLC
  • Assignee: CommWorks Solutions, LLC (Georgia)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in source.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter — part of the bulk IV→IPinvestments/Brainbox divestiture. RPX reported that IPinvestments-affiliated entities ("including CommWorks Solutions, LLC, a networking campaign") took thousands of IV assets in late 2019; Brainbox Innovations, LLC was formed in Georgia in October 2019 "apparently to facilitate the acquisition and assertion of the former IV assets."

• 2020-09-18 (executed) / recorded 2020-11-05 — Reel 054443/0958

  • Conveyance: License
  • Assignor: CommWorks Solutions, LLC
  • Assignee: Unwired Solutions, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in source.
  • Context: Settlement license — the licensee is Unwired Broadband, Inc., a real fixed-wireless ISP at 215 W. Fallbrook Ave., Suite 203, Fresno, CA. A "Settlement and License Agreement" between CommWorks (Licensor) and Unwired Broadband, Inc. (Licensee) was produced as Exhibit 1002 in IPR2021-01297 (Unified Patents v. CommWorks), with a subscriber-capped, non-transferable license structure — i.e., defensive/settlement, not an assertion vehicle.

• 2020-09-18 (executed) / recorded 2021-02-04 — Reel 056981/0631

  • Conveyance: Corrective assignment — "to correct the assignee name previously recorded at reel 054443 frame 0958." Two parallel entries appear: one confirming the License, one confirming the Assignment.
  • Assignor: CommWorks Solutions, LLC
  • Assignee: UNWIRED BROADBAND, INC. (California)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in source.
  • Context: Change of name only — corrects "Unwired Solutions, Inc." to "Unwired Broadband, Inc." No economic change.

• 2020-09-18 (executed) / recorded 2022-02-16 — Reel 059907/0563

  • Conveyance: Corrective assignment — to correct the NATURE OF CONVEYANCE previously recorded at reel 056981 frame 0631; assignor confirms the Assignment
  • Assignor: CommWorks Solutions, LLC
  • Assignee: UNWIRED BROADBAND, INC. (California)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in source.
  • Context: Conveyance-type correction — the 2020-09-18 instrument migrates from "License" to "Assignment" on the record. Note the internal tension: the underlying document produced in the PTAB is a Settlement and License Agreement, and CommWorks continued to sue on RE44904 through 2025 — so what actually passed to Unwired Broadband is unclear on the face of the record.

Fee/lapse events (non-assignment, but ownership-relevant): FPAY 2016-11-28 (year 8 maintenance fee, original event code); maintenance-fee reminder 2021-02-15; lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees 2021-08-02; adjusted expiration recorded as 2020-03-15. Google Patents lists the current assignee as Unwired Broadband, Inc.

No original-recordation gap: this patent is not a case of "no records — original assignee still owns it." There are nine recorded events across five distinct owners.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US RE44904
    1999 : PCT filed by Nokia Corporation
    2002 : US continuation filed
         : Inventor rights assigned to Nokia
    2006 : US 7027465 issued
    2009 : US 7555014 issued
    2011 : Reissue application filed
         : Inventor assignment recorded
         : Nokia sells to Calton Research
    2011 : Inventor name corrected
    2014 : Reissue RE44904 granted
    2016 : Calton merged into OL Security
    2019 : IV Assets 130 takes title
         : CommWorks Solutions takes title
    2020 : Recorded as license to Unwired
         : CommWorks files first suits
    2021 : Maintenance fee lapse
    2022 : Conveyance corrected to assignment
    2025 : Suits filed against chipmakers

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
Patent moves from an operating vendor (Nokia) to licensing-only entities four times: Nokia → Calton Research L.L.C., Delaware (executed 2011-01-13, reel 026794/0956) → OL Security LLC, at IV's Bellevue WA address (merger 2015-08-26, reel 037560/0320) → Intellectual Ventures Assets 130 LLC (2019-10-30, reel 050886/0662) → CommWorks Solutions, LLC, a Georgia LLC whose sole disclosed corporate parent is Brainbox Innovations, LLC (Rule 7.1 disclosure, CommWorks v. EarthLink, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716, filed 2025-07-15), with its registered office at 44 Milton Ave., Suite 254, Alpharetta, GA 30009 — a suite/mail-drop address (per the settlement agreement produced as IPR2021-01297 Ex. 1002). On Calton Research specifically: no product evidence surfaced in searching and I could not independently confirm its relationship to Nokia — treat that single link as unclear; the IV → IV Assets 130 → CommWorks links are well-evidenced.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
Intellectual Ventures entities are in the chain: OL Security LLC (described in IV's own filings as "a wholly owned subsidiary of the IV entities," per E.D. Tex. 4:24-cv-00980-ALM Doc. 147-7 at ¶27) and Intellectual Ventures Assets 130 LLC. CommWorks Solutions, LLC is identified by Unified Patents as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC" (Unified Patents insight pages, 2021-11-22 and 2022-02-15) and by RPX as part of the IPinvestments Group "networking campaign" built on IV-divested assets (RPX via Mondaq, 2020-07-27).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ESTABLISHED.
The correspondent field is not available for this patent's reel/frame entries from the source used, so I cannot state that a single attorney or firm recorded multiple links. I decline to infer it from names alone. The nearest hard evidence is family-level, not chain-level: the annex to a different assignment abstract (IPR2025-00340 Ex. 1064, reel 066941/0209) shows "Intellectual Ventures Management – IP Legal" as correspondent on an OL Security-related recording — i.e., IV's in-house IP legal department routinely acts as correspondent of record on IV-family recordings. Flagged as analog only.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT.
Two consecutive arm's-length-looking transfers through chained LLCs inside 16 days: IV Assets 130 LLC takes title 2019-10-30 (reel 050886/0662) and passes it to CommWorks Solutions, LLC 2019-11-15 (reel 051463/0026), both recorded within the following 63 days. Adding the 2015-08-26 merger (reel 037560/0320), that is three title transfers through three distinct entities in under four years (2015-08-26 → 2019-10-30 → 2019-11-15), all recorded by the same assignee-side apparatus.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (chain-level).
The assertion-enabling transfer was executed 2019-11-15 / recorded 2020-01-03 (reel 051463/0026). The earliest identified CommWorks infringement filing is 2020-09-14 (CommWorks Solutions LLC v. RCN Telecom Services LLC, S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-07534) — roughly 10 months after execution and 8 months after recording, and within ~11 months of Brainbox Innovations' October 2019 formation. Not literally inside the 6-month window from execution, so this is a strong rather than textbook instance; the sequence (Georgia LLCs formed Oct 2019 → assets acquired Nov 2019 → first suits Sep 2020) is the classic set-up-and-assert cadence described by RPX.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No bankruptcy. Nokia's 2011 transfer and the 2019 IV divestiture were negotiated portfolio sales, not Chapter 7/11 dispositions.

7. Privateering — PRESENT.
The IV sell-off structure is alleged to leave the divesting party with a continuing economic stake: in Altice USA, Inc. et al v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, D. Del. 1:21-cv-01323 (filed 2021-09-17), Altice alleged (per IPWatchdog, 2021-09-22) that Intellectual Ventures retained a security interest and a backend on licensing revenue, and that CommWorks, DataCloud Techs. and DigiMedia Tech are "part of a broader, coordinated patent assertion campaign driven by Brainbox and executed through Defendant and its sister LLCs." That is the privateering signature — a large aggregator profiting through nominally independent asserters.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. Unified Patents is on the opposing side, not in the title chain: it filed IPR2021-01297 against CommWorks' US 8,923,846 and an ex parte reexamination (90014909) against CommWorks' US 6,832,249. The only defensively-aligned transaction in the chain is the Unwired Broadband settlement license (executed 2020-09-18, reels 054443/0958, 056981/0631, 059907/0563) — that neutralizes this patent only for Unwired Broadband's subscriber base, not generally.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain is a four-link cascade out of an operating vendor into assertion entities: Nokia → Calton Research L.L.C. (executed 2011-01-13, reel 026794/0956) → OL Security LLC (merger 2015-08-26, reel 037560/0320, at IV's own Bellevue address) → Intellectual Ventures Assets 130 LLC (2019-10-30, reel 050886/0662) → CommWorks Solutions, LLC (2019-11-15, reel 051463/0026), whose Rule 7.1 disclosure names Brainbox Innovations, LLC as parent and which Unified Patents publicly identifies as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC." CommWorks then asserted RE44904 against Broadcom, Texas Instruments, STMicroelectronics, NXP, DrayTek, EarthLink, Extreme Networks, CommScope/ARRIS, Linksys and Grandstream (2023–2026 dockets, e.g. E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00024; W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00363 and 7:25-cv-00395; E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716), asserting a patent whose recorded term had already lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees on 2021-08-02.

Caveat on current ownership: the record's last transaction is a 2020-09-18 instrument recorded as a License (reel 054443/0958) and later corrected to an Assignment to Unwired Broadband, Inc. (reel 059907/0563), while the document produced in the PTAB is a Settlement and License Agreement and CommWorks remained the named plaintiff in every subsequent suit. Ownership as between CommWorks and Unwired Broadband is therefore unclear on the public record — but that ambiguity does not change the NPE character of the chain.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number RE44904 or RE44904E1) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — confirm reels 026794/0902, 026794/0956, 027035/0115, 037560/0320, 050886/0662, 051463/0026, 054443/0958, 056981/0631 and 059907/0563, and capture the correspondent field, which the source used here does not expose.

I'll verify the key prior-art references cited on the face of RE44,904 to describe them accurately and assess anticipation. Let me run parallel searches.

Let me verify the remaining key references, including the non-patent literature and the wireless-LAN-specific art.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could independently query USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB and verify the contents of every EP/WO reference. Everything below is grounded in (a) the authoritative full text of RE44,904 E1 supplied in your message (which is the USPTO/Google Patents record) and (b) the searches I did complete. Where I could not verify a reference's disclosure, I say so rather than guess.

---

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. RE44,904 E1

0. Identification and scope

• Patent searched: RE44,904 E1 — "Method for contention free traffic detection," reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 7,555,014 (which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,027,465), from PCT/EP1999/010097 (published as WO 2001/045328 A1). Application 13/171,882; granted 2014-05-20; effective filing/priority date 1999-12-17; status "Expired – Fee Related." This matches the family/ownership facts in the earlier litigation section.
• Governing law: because the effective filing date is 1999-12-17, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies. The statutory critical date for § 102(a)/(b)/(e) art is 1999-12-17.
• Citation-set nuance: the Google/USPTO record shows "Citations (22)" and "Patent Citations (23)." The 23rd entry is US 7,027,465 B2 — the parent of the reissue — which (like WO 2001/045328 A1, EP 1,249,098 A1, and US 7,555,014 B2) is a family member, not prior art. Only the 22 true references (plus 3 non‑patent citations) are candidates.

1. What a § 102 reference must disclose

Every independent claim (1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18) requires, at minimum: (i) detecting a priority frame by extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position and comparing it to a search pattern / match; and (ii) transmitting the priority frame in a period reserved for priority frames (high-priority queue); and (iii) adjusting the duration of that period based on statistics of sent priority frames (claims 2, 4, 11, 17 add the counting/ratio; 12, 18 add the percentage formulation). Claims 6 and 8–9, 14–16 are dependent/format variants.

No cited reference appears to disclose all three groups in a single disclosure — which is consistent with the patent having issued. The references split into two clusters: (A) content/pattern-matching forwarders (relevant to group i) and (B) priority-queuing/scheduling art (relevant to groups ii–iii).

2. Reference-by-reference analysis

A. Content/pattern-matching references (map to the detection limitations)

1. US 6,347,087 B1 — "Content-based forwarding/filtering in a network switching device"

• Assignee Packet Engines Inc.; filed 1998-10-05; granted 2002-02-12 (priority 1998-10-05).
• Discloses storing an offset value, a comparator value, an anchor, and a mask; comparing information at a position in the frame determined by the offset with the comparator (after masking); and processing the frame with the outcome, "including… setting the priority of the frame." Example: mask 0x0F applied at a byte offset, match against 0x08. (patents.google.com/patent/US6347087; PDF at patentimages…/US6347087.pdf)
• Potential § 102 relevance: the single closest reference to the detection core of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 13 (extract-at-offset, compare-to-pattern, mask, identify priority). It is § 102(e) art (filed before 1999-12-17).
• Caveat: it does not disclose a contention-free/special transmit period, a priority queue, or statistical adjustment of that period. It therefore cannot anticipate any full independent claim; it is best characterized as the principal § 102/§ 103 reference for the extraction/compare/priority-identification limitations.

2. US 5,881,242 A — "Method and system of parsing frame headers for routing data frames within a computer network" (Ku et al., IBM)

• Filed 1997-01-09; granted 1999-03-09.
• Parses a frame header into test units and compares bit groups against reference patterns using a search tree to route frames. (FreePatentsOnline 5881242; Google Patents US5881242)
• Potential § 102 relevance: "extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a frame" and "comparing" it with a stored pattern — claim 1 (a)/(b), claim 3 (extracter/comparator), claim 7 (extract + compare). It is routing art, not priority/queue/statistics art, so it cannot anticipate a full claim.

3. US 6,658,363 B2 — "Digital data pattern detection methods and arrangements" (Mejia et al., Hewlett-Packard)

• Filed 2001-01-18; granted 2003-12-02.
• Discloses a pattern detector that determines whether a selected portion of a data stream matches a pattern mask associated with a trigger pattern and outputs an arming signal. (FreePatentsOnline 6658363; Google Patents US6658363B2)
• Potential § 102 relevance: extract-selected-portion-and-match-a-mask (claims 1(a)–(b), 12-style mask language).
• ⚠ Explicit flag / anomaly: the record's own dates place this reference's filing (2001-01-18) after the 1999-12-17 priority date, so it would not be § 102 prior art (no earlier priority/provisional is shown). It is nonetheless listed as examiner-cited. This is inconsistent and should be verified against the actual USPTO record — it may be an IDS item, or a citation inherited from a different family member's prosecution, or mis-dated in the aggregator.

B. Priority-queuing / scheduling references (map to the transmit-period and statistics limitations)

4. US 5,541,919 A — "Multimedia multiplexing device and method using dynamic packet segmentation" (Ng, Yong, Yang; Motorola)

• Filed/priority 1994-12-19; granted 1996-07-30. Examiner-cited.
• Discloses prioritizing bitstreams into priority groups, a multi-discipline queuing scheme (higher priority served before lower), and a partition/service period T_p that "is adjusted dynamically." (Google Patents US5541919A; patents.google.com)
• Potential § 102 relevance: priority-based queuing and dynamic adjustment of a service period — the analogue of claim 1(d)–(e), claim 2, claims 7/10/11 (transmit-period + adjustment). It uses buffer fullness/delay-sensitivity as the metric rather than "statistics of sent priority frames," and does not do frame bit-pattern detection, so no full anticipation.

5. US 6,633,564 B1 — "Method and apparatus for inserting packets into a data stream" (Steer et al., Nortel)

• Filed 1999-09-22; granted 2003-10-14. Examiner-cited.
• Discloses interrupting transmission of an existing (lower-priority) stream to insert higher-priority "interrupting packets." (FreePatentsOnline 6633564; PDF at docketalarm IPR2021-00984 Ex.1008.)
• Potential § 102 relevance: the priority-over-normal transmission concept (claims 1(d), 7, 10 — "reserved/priority" transmission). No content-matching, no statistical period adjustment → no full anticipation. § 102(e) art (filed 1999-09-22, before 1999-12-17).

6. US 5,682,386 A — "Data/voice/fax compression multiplexer" (Multi-Tech Systems)

• Filed/priority 1994-04-19; granted 1997-10-28. Examiner-cited.
• A multiplexer for multiple traffic types; generally allocates/handles traffic by type/priority. (Content not independently re-verified before the step limit; description is from the record's title and general knowledge.)
• Potential § 102 relevance: priority handling in a multiplexer — claims 1(d)/7 transmit priority concepts. Weak; no pattern matching.

C. Other cited references (background / weak § 102 relevance)

3. Non-patent literature cited

• EPO International Search Report, WO 01/045328, Apr. 4, 2001 (7 pp.) — prosecution document, not substantive art.
• R.O. LaMaire et al., "Wireless LANs and Mobile Networking: Standards and Future Directions," IEEE Communications Magazine, Aug. 1996, pp. 1–15 — the most defensible NPL reference: a survey of IEEE 802.11 (PCF/CFP, MAC). Relevant only as general 802.11/CFP background for the "contention-free/priority period" limitations; I could not re-verify its full text before the step limit.
• Stolowitz Ford Cowger LLP, "Related Case Listing," Aug. 24, 2011 (1 p.) — litigation/administrative document, no technical teaching.

4. Assessment under 35 U.S.C. § 102

• No cited reference, as a single disclosure, anticipates any full independent claim (1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18). The claims require the combination of (a) bit-pattern-at-offset detection, (b) reserved/priority transmit period, and (c) statistics-based duration adjustment; the art supplies at most one of these groups per reference.
• Most relevant/anticipatory-risk references for the detection limitations: US 6,347,087 B1 (offset + comparator + mask + "setting priority" — very close to claim 1/3/5 limitations) and US 5,881,242 A (extract-bit-group + compare-to-reference-pattern).
• Most relevant for the queue/period/statistics limitations: US 5,541,919 A (priority groups + dynamically adjusted service period) and, secondarily, US 6,633,564 B1 (higher-priority interruption).
• US 6,658,363 B2 maps to the mask/selected-portion matching limitation but is date-anomalous (appears post-priority) — its § 102 status is doubtful on the retrieved dates.
• Realistically, the cited art is § 102/§ 103 art on individual limitations, not an anticipatory single reference.

5. Bottom line and caveats

1. The strongest, best-verified prior art is US 6,347,087 B1 (content-based offset/comparator/mask forwarding that can set frame priority) and US 5,881,242 A (frame-header bit-pattern comparison) — both pre-1999-12-17; US 5,541,919 A covers the priority-queue/dynamic-period concept.
2. No reference clearly anticipates a complete claim; expect § 103-type combinations rather than § 102 anticipation.
3. Flags to verify: (i) US 6,658,363 B2's dates appear to postdate the patent's 1999-12-17 priority — inconsistent with its "examiner-cited" label; (ii) EP 0,804,006 A2 and US 5,822,361 A could not be content-verified and are the two wireless-WLAN references most worth pulling in full; (iii) I could not complete independent USPTO/PatentCenter or PTAB queries before the step limit, so all docket/prior-art dates should be reconfirmed against the primary USPTO record before being relied on.
4. Family members (US 7,027,465; US 7,555,014; WO 2001/045328 A1; EP 1,249,098 A1) are the same disclosure and are not available as prior art against RE44,904.

I'll pull abstracts/content for the key cited references so the obviousness analysis is grounded in what those references actually teach, not just their titles.

The Packet Engines reference is a direct hit on the detection mechanism. Let me confirm three more references and the Lemaire paper.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. RE44,904 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Note on method. I was cut off by a search-step limit after retrieving full/partial text for four of the cited references (US 6,347,087; US 5,594,738; EP 0 804 006; US 6,658,363) plus the IEEE 802.11 draft-standard document. For the remaining references I have only the bibliographic data (number, date, assignee, title) as listed in the "Citations (22)" and "Patent Citations (23)" sections of the Google Patents page. I mark each reference below as [verified] (I retrieved substance) or [title-only]. I do not fabricate teachings for title-only references.

---

I. Threshold: priority date, governing law, and which "prior art" is actually prior art

• Critical date: 1999-12-17 (PCT/EP1999/010097). Pre-AIA §§ 102/103 govern; the reissue (application 13/171,882, filed 2011-06-29) does not change the effective filing date of the subject matter.
• Level of ordinary skill in the art: a B.S. in EE/CS (or equivalent) with 2–4 years of experience in wireless data networking and MAC-layer protocol design, including familiarity with IEEE 802.11-1997 and its PCF/CFP mechanism, plus a working knowledge of frame-header formats (Ethernet II, IP, UDP/TCP).
• Two important date problems in the cited-art list — flagging these explicitly:

---

II. Claim decomposition (literal claim text)

The reissue carries 18 claims. Claims 1–6 correspond to the original patent claims (with reissue amendments; note the "search pattern" language replaced "first search pattern," and apparatus claims 3–4 were recast as "receiver/…/identifier/controller" structural claims). Claims 7–18 are new reissue claims and were therefore never examined against the 1999-era art in the original 2002/2006 applications — a materially weaker prosecution-history posture.

The critical observation: claims 10–12 do not even require the bit-pattern extraction/comparison. They recite only (i) detecting a priority frame from frame information, (ii) transmitting it in a reserved period, and (iii) adjusting that period's duration based on statistics. That is the 802.11 PCF/CFP architecture itself, plus a routine feedback loop.

---

III. What the references actually teach

US 6,347,087 B1 — Packet Engines, "Content-based forwarding/filtering in a network switching device" [verified — strongest reference]

This reference is a direct hit on claim 1's detection mechanism, and it was before the examiner. Verified teachings:

• A filter/policy definition: {expectant, offset, length, anchor, mask, comparator}, where the offset is a byte/word offset from an anchor point, anchors including "a fixed byte-offset from the beginning of the frame."
• Mask "is AND/OR/NAND/NORed with the frame's content present at its 'offset' location… used to omit various unwanted bits."
• "comparator is a value which is to be compared against the resultant content bytes after the application of 'mask'."
• Resultant actions: "Examples are: raising or lowering the priority of the frame, forward it to a particular port, filter it…"
• Independent claim 1 (as summarized): "storing… an offset value, a comparator value, and an expectant value; comparing information located at a position in a frame determined by the offset value with the comparator value to obtain an outcome; and processing the frame with the outcome. Processing the frame may include communicating the frame to a destination port or setting the priority of the frame."
• Multiple filters may be combined via Boolean logic; implementation is "entirely programmed into ASIC so that content-based forwarding/filtering is accomplished for every frame at wirespeed without any intervention from any microprocessor."

The final point is decisive on motivation: the '904 specification's stated problem is that deep header parsing at the AP is "very complex, takes a long time and requires a large amount of processing" and is "too heavy to handle in quite small and low price equipment like WLAN access points." '087 teaches precisely the hardware-offloaded, offset-and-compare solution to that problem.

EP 0 804 006 A2/A3 — IBM (Bauchot), "Medium access control scheme for a wireless access to an ATM network" (pub. 1997-10-29) [verified]

Abstract: "an adaptive and efficient MAC protocol for wireless access to an ATM network… capable of supporting any type of ATM service class with associated Quality of Services parameters"; parties communicate with an "ATM Access Point." The published claim set includes: "access means comprising means for defining time frames and scheduling traffic; the system further comprising means for varying the duration of time frames as a function of the load of the system."

That is a wireless access-point MAC that (i) differentiates traffic by QoS class and (ii) varies the duration of a scheduled period as a function of system load — i.e., the "adjusting the duration of the special period … according to statistic information" element.

US 5,594,738 — Motorola, "Time slot allocation method" [verified]

Dynamic allocation of time slots in response to a request carried in a received packet; when the requested slots are unavailable, the allocator "queues the request"; claim 8 recites "prioritizing the queuing of the request for allocation." Teaches demand-driven resource allocation with priority-sensitive queuing.

IEEE P802.11-95/174 [verified]

Primary evidence, predating the critical date, of the exact architecture the '904 claims: "CFP Repetition Interval," "Contention Free Period," "Contention Period," beacon-initiated CFP, "CF_Max_Duration," CF-Poll, and CF-End signalling the end of the CFP. This supplies the "special period for sending priority traffic" / "transmit period reserved for priority frames" claim element with a direct documentary cite: https://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Documents/DocumentArchives/1995_docs/1195174_scan.pdf

LaMaire et al. (IEEE Commun. Mag., Aug. 1996) [partially verified]

Verified: the article surveys IEEE 802.11 and wireless LAN standards and future directions. I could not retrieve the body text, so I do not assert that it teaches a specific priority-detection algorithm. Its role in a rejection is as corroborating evidence that the 802.11 PCF/CFP and QoS provision were well known and under active discussion at the critical date.

Title-only references (indicative value, not established)

US 5,881,242 (IBM, "parsing frame headers for routing data frames") — likely header-offset parsing. US 5,822,361 (Hitachi, "Wireless LAN system and base station apparatus"). EP 0 917,317 (Lucent, "conflict resolution in a multiple access system"). EP 0 782,297 (LSI Logic, "increasing the effective bandwidth of a digital wireless network"). US 5,541,919 (Motorola, multimedia multiplexing with dynamic packet segmentation). US 4,716,407 (Motorola, "true priority channel scan"). I have not verified their disclosures and would not rely on them without pulling full text.

---

IV. Proposed § 103 grounds

Ground 1 — Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16

'087 in view of IEEE P802.11-95/174 (or LaMaire) and the admitted state of the art.

• '087 discloses every element of the detection sub-step: a bit pattern extracted at a predetermined offset ("a fixed byte-offset from the beginning of the frame"), masked, and compared to a comparator/expectant value, with the outcome being priority raising/lowering of the frame.
• The 802.11 draft standard discloses the CFP as a reserved, contention-free period for delay-sensitive traffic and a settable CF_Max_Duration.
• The patentee's own specification supplies the motivation: it states that the IEEE 802.11 standard "does not specify how the PCF should be controlled or how some traffic should be identified as high priority traffic," and that conventional APs "do not separate traffic based on priority." An express statement in the specification that the industry had left a problem open is an admission of the design incentive, not a teaching away.
• KSR rationales available: (1) use of a known technique ('087's filter) to improve a similar device (an AP's forwarding path) in the same way; (2) combination of familiar elements according to known methods yielding predictable results (offset+compare → classify → enqueue); (3) market/design incentive to add QoS differentiation to WLAN to support real-time traffic.
• Reasonable expectation of success: both operate on byte-aligned frame content at known offsets. The '904 specification itself concedes the offsets are arithmetic (it computes 32 bytes into the IP header + 14 bytes Ethernet = 46 bytes), meaning adaptation requires only routine bookkeeping once the protocol stack is fixed.

Ground 2 — Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, 18

Ground 1 further in view of EP 0 804 006 A2 (and optionally US 5,594,738).

• EP 0 804 006 supplies the feedback-loop element: varying the duration of scheduled time frames as a function of system load, in a wireless AP serving QoS-differentiated traffic classes.
• Claim 2's counting steps ('total priority frames'; 'priority frames outside the special period'; decision from those counts) are the routine implementation of EP 0 804 006's "load" measurement. Load is a count of traffic. Nothing in claim 2 requires anything beyond a counter and a comparator against a threshold — routine engineering, and '087 already teaches hardware counters/comparators operating at wire speed.
• Claim 11/'12's ratio and percentage formulations are arithmetic restatements of the same measurement, obvious variations of claim 2.
• US 5,594,738 reinforces the "queue on unavailability / prioritize the queue" concept relevant to claims 8–9.

Ground 3 — Claims 10, 11, 12 (highest invalidity risk)

EP 0 804 006 in view of the 802.11 CFP, and/or '087. Because claims 10–12 omit extraction/comparison, they reduce to: detect a priority frame from frame info; transmit it in a reserved period; adjust the period's duration on statistics. EP 0 804 006's wireless ATM MAC — QoS classes, scheduled time frames of load-dependent duration — read against the 802.11 CFP supplies each element. I would rank these claims as invalid on their face, subject to confirming EP 0 804 006's full specification and whether it teaches priority detection from frame content (which is needed only for claim 11/'12's counting/ratio, not for claim 10).

Ground 4 — Claim 6

A "memory having a program stored thereon" for carrying out claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1; the program product adds only a conventional storage medium. In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995) — computer-readable media claims are statutory and, once statutory, are evaluated as any other apparatus claim; the memory itself is a notoriously well-known element with no asserted unexpected function. Obvious over claims 1 + '087.

Ground 5 — Claims 3, 4, 5 (apparatus/means-plus-function)

Apparatus counterparts of a method are obvious where the apparatus is the conventional hardware for performing the steps (a receiver, a comparator, a memory, a queue controller are all standard AP components). Claim 5's means-plus-function recitation is coextensive with claim 3 on any reasonable construction.

---

V. Motivation to combine — the KSR showing

1. Same field, same problem. Both '087 and the '904 target the same bottleneck: packet classification by deep parsing is too slow for high-speed, low-cost forwarding hardware. '087 solved it with offset/mask/compare in an ASIC; the '904 spec states the same need for a WLAN AP.
2. Art-recognized problem. The 802.11 draft and LaMaire establish that CFP/PCF existed but priority identification was unaddressed. That gap is the invitation to combine.
3. Predictable result. Substituting a fixed-offset comparison for full header parsing yields the expected outcome (faster classification), with no asserted unexpected property.
4. Analogous art. '087 (network switching/forwarding) and EP 0 804 006 (wireless MAC with QoS) are both from the field of packet-switched network traffic handling, and both are reasonably pertinent to the AP's classification/scheduling problem.
5. Design incentives. Supporting real-time traffic (videoconference, VoIP) in a WLAN was a recognized commercial driver, and EP 0 804 006 demonstrates that the adaptive-frame-duration feedback loop was already applied in an analogous wireless-access context.

---

VI. Anticipated patentee rebuttals and how they fare

Separately flagged, non-§ 103 issues worth parallel investigation: (a) the reissue was filed 2011-06-29, one day inside the two-year window from grant of US 7,555,014 (issued 2009-06-30) that 35 U.S.C. § 251(d) allows for broadening reissue claims — the addition of broader claims 7–18 invites scrutiny of that timing without regard to § 103; and (b) claims 7–18 must be supported by the original '465/'014 disclosure. Both are outside this task's scope and are stated as observations, not conclusions.

---

VII. Confidence and verification gaps

• High confidence: US 6,347,087 is a strong § 103 reference against the detection limitations of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 13 — I retrieved its operative text, including the offset/mask/comparator vocabulary and the express "raising or lowering the priority of the frame" action. It is the same reference the examiner had before it.
• High confidence: IEEE P802.11-95/174 is valid § 102(b) art for the CFP/reserved-period element.
• Moderate confidence: EP 0 804 006 for the duration-adjustment element — verified at abstract and claim-summary level only; the full specification should be pulled to confirm whether it discloses priority detection from received frame content (needed for claims 11–12/17–18, not for claim 10).
• Low confidence / not relied upon: every [title-only] reference (US 4,627,051; 4,716,407; 4,930,124; 5,541,919; 5,594,738 partially; 5,678,186; 5,675,617; 5,822,361; 5,857,092; 5,881,242; 6,343,087 verified; 6,633,564; EP 0 491,494; EP 0 584,667; EP 0 749,254; EP 0 782,297; EP 0 917,317; EP 0 959,398). I did not verify their disclosures and would not put them in a chart without full text.
• Explicit non-finding: I did not retrieve the LaMaire body text, so I make no assertion about what it teaches beyond its title/subject matter.
• Practical posture: RE44,904 is expired (Google Patents records an adjusted expiration of 2020-03-15 and a lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees on 2021-08-02). An invalidity analysis therefore matters chiefly as a defense to past-damages exposure in the CommWorks campaigns described in the earlier section — most of which terminated by settlement or voluntary dismissal rather than judgment, meaning no court has yet adjudicated these questions.