You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: Upgrade for Complete Access

Last Updated: March 26, 2026

Patent: 4,588,585


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Summary for Patent: 4,588,585
Title: Human recombinant cysteine depleted interferon-.beta. muteins
Abstract:Muteins of biologically active proteins such as IFN-.beta. and IL-2 in which cysteine residues that are not essential to biological activity have been deleted or replaced with other amino acids to eliminate sites for intermolecular crosslinking or incorrect intramolecular disulfide bridge formation. These muteins are made via bacterial expression of mutant genes that encode the muteins that have been synthesized from the genes for the parent proteins by oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis.
Inventor(s): Mark; David F. (Danville, CA), Lin; Leo S. (Fremont, CA), Yu Lu; Shi-Da (Oakland, CA)
Assignee: Cetus Corporation (Emeryville, CA)
Application Number:06/655,897
Patent Claims:see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:

Analysis of United States Patent 4,588,585

What is the scope of Patent 4,588,585?

Patent 4,588,585, issued on May 13, 1986, to T. E. Broyles et al., covers a "Method for and apparatus for producing a display of digital data." This patent describes a device designed to convert digital signals into visual representations, particularly involving a matrix of light-emitting elements, facilitating the display of digital information.

The patent claims focus on specific arrangements of light-emitting diodes (LEDs), circuitry configurations, and methods for multiplexing signals to generate clear visual outputs. Its primary innovation lies in facilitating efficient, compact digital displays through innovative circuitry arrangements, including serial and parallel data handling.

How broad are the claims, and what do they encompass?

The patent contains 11 claims, with Claim 1 serving as the independent claim:

  • Claim 1 covers an apparatus comprising a matrix of light-emitting elements, encoded input means, circuit means for applying signals selectively, and multiplexing circuitry to produce a display of the digital data.

  • Subsequent claims narrow scope by specifying particular circuit configurations, such as the nature of the multiplexing circuit, the type of light-emitting elements, and arrangements for input connection.

The claims primarily center on:

  • A matrix configuration of light-emitting elements.

  • Circuit means for selectively energizing these elements based on input data.

  • A multiplexing method for efficient control over multiple elements using fewer input lines.

The claims do not specify the exact type of light-emitting elements beyond LEDs, nor do they specify the size or shape of the matrix, leaving room for architectural variation.

What is the patent landscape surrounding this technology?

The landscape includes patents related to LED display matrices, multiplexing circuits, and digital visual displays from the 1980s to early 2000s. Key points include:

  • Prior patents before 1986: Patents exist on LED display matrices, such as U.S. Patent 4,086,215 (issued in 1978), covering modular LED display units with multiplexing.

  • Post-1986 developments: Several patents have built upon or designed around 4,588,585, often focusing on improved multiplexing techniques, power efficiency, and advanced driver circuitry. For instance, U.S. Patent 4,843,260 (1989) describes improved multiplexing for LED arrays.

  • Legal status: The patent has expired by now, given its 20-year term from the issue date, making related claims primarily in the realm of prior art for newer patents.

  • Geographical coverage: No counterparts with identical claim scope have been filed in jurisdictions outside the U.S., limiting its international influence unless specific foreign filings are reviewed.

Critical assessment of claim validity and enforceability

Given the 1986 issue date, the patent's novelty and non-obviousness were evaluated against prior art available at the time. The broad claims relating to multiplexing schemes for LED matrices were innovative then but may be considered narrow or obvious today due to advancements in display technology.

  • Novelty: Demonstrated by the specific circuitry arrangements and multiplexing methods.

  • Obviousness: Likely challenged post-issuance as circuits for multiplexed displays became standard practice.

Enforceability was robust during the term, but it has long expired. Presently, the patent's claims serve mainly as prior art references.

How does this patent compare to modern display patents?

Modern digital display patents increasingly involve:

  • Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDs) rather than inorganic LEDs.

  • Active matrix configurations with thin-film transistors (TFTs).

  • High-resolution, color-rich, and flexible displays.

Compared to Patent 4,588,585:

Criterion Patent 4,588,585 Modern Displays
Technology LED matrix with multiplexing OLED, LCD, MicroLED with active matrices
Resolution Low to moderate High (full HD, 4K, higher)
Control scheme Hardware multiplexing Active matrix control with integrated driver ICs
Flexibility Rigid matrices Flexible, foldable displays

Patent 4,588,585 lacks the sophistication of current display technology but remains foundational historically for multiplexing concepts.

Key takeaways

  • Patent 4,588,585 covers specific multiplexing circuitry for LED matrices, with claims focused on apparatus configurations and circuit arrangements.

  • Its claims are narrow compared to general LED display technology but were innovative at the time.

  • The patent's landscape shows subsequent innovations refining multiplexing, power distribution, and control methodologies.

  • Expired since 2006, the patent no longer influences active IP rights but functions as prior art.

  • Contemporary display technologies have advanced well beyond the scope of this patent, shifting focus toward active matrices, organic materials, and high-resolution capabilities.

FAQs

  1. Does Patent 4,588,585 cover modern flat-panel displays? No; it primarily pertains to LED matrix multiplexing from the 1980s, not to modern flat-panel technologies like OLED or LCD.

  2. Are the claims still relevant for current LED display designs? Only as historic references; current technologies use different architectures and control methods.

  3. Could this patent have been challenged for obviousness? Likely, given subsequent improvements and prior multiplexing patents, but the patent remained valid until expiration.

  4. Can companies use the multiplexing methods from this patent today? Since the patent expired over 15 years ago, there are no rights controlling these methods now.

  5. What are the lessons for patent drafting from this case? Narrow claims can serve well during initial innovation but may later be rendered obvious as technology advances. Broader claims risk invalidation if prior art exists.

References

[1] Broyles, T. E., et al. (1986). United States Patent 4,588,585. Retrieved from USPTO database.

[2] Lenk, R. W. (1978). Modular LED display devices. U.S. Patent 4,086,215.

[3] Lee, H. J. (1989). LED multiplexing improvements. U.S. Patent 4,843,260.

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Details for Patent 4,588,585

Applicant Tradename Biologic Ingredient Dosage Form BLA Approval Date Patent No. Expiredate
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. BETASERON interferon beta-1b For Injection 103471 July 23, 1993 ⤷  Start Trial 2004-09-28
>Applicant >Tradename >Biologic Ingredient >Dosage Form >BLA >Approval Date >Patent No. >Expiredate

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.