US 10557870

I'll search for this specific patent number across USPTO and litigation sources.

Let me verify against primary sources and check for any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me do a final check for PTAB/Court of Appeals proceedings specifically naming this patent.

US 10,557,870 B2 — Summary

Important scope note up front: My searches did not surface any litigation, PTAB proceeding, or Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) docket in 2026 (or any year) naming US 10,557,870 or Tektronix as a party. The one "docket-like" hit that came back for a "10557870"-style query involved a different patent — U.S. 7,552,870 in Reframe Technologies LLC v. The Bernard Group, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-01573 — which is unrelated to this patent and must not be conflated with it. I therefore cannot confirm any judicial or administrative challenge. Treat the absence of litigation hits as "none found," not "definitively none exists," since I could not exhaustively query PACER/CAFC dockets.

The bibliographic and claim content below is taken from the authoritative full-text record (Google Patents / USPTO family data) rather than inferred.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim substance)

A test and measurement instrument and method are disclosed. The instrument includes a display having a time domain graticule and a frequency domain graticule. A processor samples an input signal to generate a time domain waveform for display in the time domain graticule, and generates a frequency domain waveform for display in the frequency domain graticule, where the frequency domain waveform is correlated to a selected time period of the time domain graticule. The processor also generates a spectrum time indicator that graphically illustrates a location and the selected time period of the time domain graticule with respect to the frequency domain waveform.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 20 claims total, with three independent claims: 1 (apparatus), 10 (method), and 17 (computer-readable medium). There are no independent claims beyond these three.

Claim 1 — the instrument (apparatus).
Covers a test-and-measurement instrument, e.g., a digital oscilloscope, comprising:

1. a display with two graticules — one for time domain and one for frequency domain;
2. input(s) to receive signal(s) from device(s) under test;
3. an acquisition system that digitizes the signal(s) into signal samples that share a time base; and
4. a processor that:
   • builds a time-domain waveform from a first series of those samples for the time graticule;
   • takes user input identifying a time period in that time-domain waveform;
   • selects a second series of samples — chosen by using the shared time base to find the samples corresponding to the user-identified period; and
   • performs a frequency-domain transform (FFT) on that second series to produce the frequency-domain waveform for the frequency graticule.

The inventive hook is the time-base-based sample selection: the spectrum is computed from exactly those stored samples that correspond to the user-chosen time window.

Claim 10 — the method.
Mirrors Claim 1 as a method of viewing time-correlated signal acquisitions: receive signal(s) from device(s) under test; digitize into samples having a time base; generate a time-domain waveform from a first series of samples in a time graticule; receive user input identifying a time period within that waveform; select a second series of samples based on the time base corresponding to the identified period; and transform that second series to generate the frequency-domain waveform shown in a frequency graticule. (Note the claim 10 text contains a drafting artifact — "correspond to with the identified time period.")

Claim 17 — the non-transitory computer-readable medium.
A CRM storing a program that, when run by a processor, causes it to: receive signal(s) from device(s) under test; digitize into time-based samples; generate a time-domain waveform from a first series of samples for a time graticule; receive user input selecting a time period; identify a second series of samples based on the time base corresponding to the selected period; generate the frequency-domain waveform by transforming the second series; and generate a spectrum time indicator graphically showing the location of the selected period relative to the time-domain waveform. Claim 17 is the only independent claim that recites the spectrum time indicator (in claims 1 and 10, that feature appears only in dependent claims 3 and 12).

Dependent claim highlights (for context)

• Claims 2, 11, 18: user can modify the time period; the frequency-domain waveform updates dynamically.
• Claims 3, 12: a spectrum time indicator shows the selected period's location; modifying the period can be done by moving the indicator along the time axis.
• Claim 4: a pan input drives that movement. Claims 5–7, 14–16: a zoom input magnifies the time view, and the spectrum time indicator is re-centered in the zoomed view both on zoom-in and on panning.
• Claims 8, 19: the two sample series can come from different signals/channels (time waveform on one channel, spectrum on another).
• Claims 9, 20: alternatively, the second sample series is a subset of the first (same signal).

Uncertainty flags

• Litigation/CAFC: No 2026 (or other) CAFC or district-court matter naming this patent was found in my searches; I could not run a complete PACER/CAFC docket check, so I cannot rule out unindexed proceedings.
• Assignee/status: "Tektronix, Inc." and "Active" are as listed in the patent record; the record itself notes the legal status is an assumption, not a legal conclusion.
• Everything else above (numbers, dates, inventor, claims) is taken directly from the authoritative patent text and is high confidence.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10557870.

Litigation Search Results — U.S. Patent No. 10,557,870

Bottom line: I found no litigation of any kind specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 10,557,870 — no district court complaints, no ITC Section 337 investigations, and no PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) naming this patent.

What I searched

• General web searches for the patent number (both 10,557,870 and 10557870) combined with "litigation," "lawsuit," "infringement," "defendant."
• Unified Patents portal (litigation and PTAB case lists) for this number.
• The full Google Patents page for US 10,557,870, which contains no "Litigation" section (Google Patents populates such a section when district-court/Federal Circuit cases are linked to a patent).

No case records, docket entries, complaints, or judgments surfaced for this specific number.

Important caveats on my process

• I have only a general web-search tool available — I could not directly query PACER, Docket Navigator, LexisNexis/Lex Machina, or the Unified Patents portal's case-list API. My conclusion rests on aggregated public sources (Google Patents, uspto.report, Docket Alarm, CourtListener, Unified Patents) plus general web indexing.
• Absence of hits is not conclusive. For a definitive answer, this number should be run directly against PACER (all U.S. district courts), the ITC's EDIS, and the PTAB's Endpoint API for IPR/PGR/CBM petitions.

Context that may explain the result (from the patent record itself)

Because this is a Tektronix (operating-company) instrument patent rather than an NPE asset, and its active claim set issued relatively recently (2020), a complete absence of assertion history is plausible.

Two near-misses I identified and deliberately excluded

1. Tektronix, Inc. v. United States (Ct. Cl. / Fed. Cir., 1978, 575 F.2d 832; 552 F.2d 343) — an old Tektronix oscilloscope patent case against the U.S. Government; it involves entirely different patents from the 1960s–70s and is unrelated to the '870 patent.
2. Tektronix Section 337 complaint (ITC), published at 83 Fed. Reg. (2018-03-16, FR Doc. 2018-05336) — a Tektronix ITC action in which Tektronix was complainant. I could not confirm which patents were asserted, and nothing in my results ties it to US 10,557,870. I flag it only as a lead worth checking, not as a finding.

Recommended next steps for a definitive clearance

• Run the patent number on Unified Patents Portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist?q=10557870) and on its PTAB case list.
• Query Docket Navigator or Lex Machina by patent number, which index complaint exhibits and cover pages that generic web search frequently misses.
• Search PACER across all districts for "10,557,870" and for the parent "9,500,676."
• Also check the sibling family member US 9,500,676 B2 and the Chinese counterpart CN 102955053 B, since assertion campaigns sometimes target the parent rather than the continuation.

If you'd like, I can draft the exact query strings for those databases, or attempt additional targeted web searches (e.g., against CourtListener's RECAP full-text search) to probe further.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings on file" result against public PTAB/CAFC sources before concluding.

Let me probe the family member (parent '676 patent) and Tektronix's PTAB footprint, since challenges sometimes land on a sibling rather than this exact number.

Let me run one final targeted pass against PTAB docket aggregators and CAFC to make sure no proceeding on this exact number exists.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,557,870: zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming this patent, and my independent web searches against PTAB docket aggregators (Docket Alarm, Unified Patents-style portals, uspto.report) and general indexing surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Director Review order referencing either US 10,557,870, application 15/294,522, or the parent US 9,500,676. The breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied — the patent's 20 claims (all three independents: 1, 10, 17) are entirely UNTESTED at the Board.

Defensive posture: There is no IPR roadmap to borrow. A defendant cannot point to any canceled or narrowed claim, and no petitioner has generated an estoppel-immunized record. The patent is legally un-hardened rather than hardened — it has never been stress-tested, but neither has it been weakened. The absence of PTAB filings is best read as a signal that this Tektronix operating-company patent has not been asserted broadly enough to attract a challenger, not as evidence that the claims are invalidity-proof.

Proceedings

None.

No proceeding number, petitioner, panel, ground, or disposition exists to report. Per the operating constraint "do not invent proceeding numbers," I am reporting the null result rather than constructing a table. On the structured-data instruction ("the default should be 'no PTAB activity on file'"), that default is confirmed and no web-surfaced proceeding contradicts it.

Adjacent proceedings worth knowing about (NOT this patent — do not conflate)

These are real Tektronix PTAB matters in the same technical space (multi-domain / time-and-frequency-domain test and measurement instruments). I flag them because a defendant's counsel will likely encounter them in a freedom-to-operate or invalidity search and may mistakenly attribute them to the '870 patent. They are different patents with different claim sets and have no estoppel or preclusive effect on US 10,557,870.

IPR2018-00643 and IPR2018-00647 — Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG v. Tektronix, Inc.

• Patent at issue: US 8,675,719 B2 ("Multi-Domain Test and Measurement Instrument") — not US 10,557,870.
• Panel (IPR2018-00647): APJs Josiah C. Cocks, Patrick M. Boucher, Scott E. Bain. Panel (IPR2018-00643): APJs Thomas L. Giannetti, Patrick M. Boucher, Scott E. Bain.
• Status: Both instituted; combined oral hearing held 2019-06-19; Final Written Decision in IPR2018-00647 dated 2019-09-10 holding no challenged claims unpatentable (claims 1–10 and 12–15 sustained). IPR2018-00643 reached a mixed result (some claims unpatentable).
• Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00647/ and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00643/
• Related: IPR2018-00645 petition against US 8,521,460 B2 was denied institution. Parallel district court case Tektronix, Inc. v. Rohde & Schwarz USA Inc., No. 3:18-cv-00264 (D. Ore.) and ITC Investigation 337-TA-1104.
• Why it matters to you: It shows Tektronix does litigate and has been IPR'd on related multi-domain instrument patents, and that Tektronix successfully defended at least one such FWD. It tells you nothing about the validity of US 10,557,870's specific claims, which are drawn to time-base-correlated sample selection for spectrum generation — a different inventive hook from the '719 patent's dual-channel acquisition architecture.

IPR2019-01386 — (petition against) US 8,069,420

• Another Tektronix oscilloscope patent appearing in PTAB records (petitioner exhibit referencing a Tektronix 465 oscilloscope manual). Same caveat: unrelated patent number.

Excluded as false positives (do not cite): US 7,552,870 (Reframe Technologies LLC v. The Bernard Group, D. Del. 1:25-cv-01573) — a different patent entirely, previously flagged in the litigation summary; and the various foreign materials (EP/WO documents numbered "9500676") that appear in keyword searches for the parent patent number but are unrelated prior art publications.

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 10,557,870 has been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB. All 20 claims stand as issued 2020-02-11. Independent claim 1 (apparatus), claim 10 (method), and claim 17 (CRM) are all live, and because none has ever been construed by the Board, there is no PTAB claim-construction record (no Phillips-style or BRI ruling) for a defendant to leverage in district court. Note the asymmetry already identified in the summary section: claim 17 is the only independent claim that recites the spectrum time indicator — claims 1 and 10 reach that feature only through dependents 3 and 12. That is a claim-drafting vulnerability a defendant can probe (e.g., arguing the spectrum-time-indicator display limitations in claims 3/12/17 are what distinguish the art), but no tribunal has yet addressed it.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel in play, because there has been no petitioner. Practically: every prior-art ground is still available to a first petitioner/defendant. There is no prior IPR record to attack collaterally under § 325(d), and no Board decision to distinguish. Conversely, nothing stops a defendant from filing the first IPR — but note the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of an infringement complaint, and an IPR petition must be filed within that window. With a 2011 priority date and a 2016 continuation filing, the prior-art universe (2011-era oscilloscope/FFT-window/spectrum-analysis references) is mature and searchable.

Pattern signals. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears anywhere in this patent's chain. No serial petitioner exists. There is no PTAB-to-Federal-Circuit appellate history for this number, and Tektronix has not needed to defend it at the Board — consistent with an operating-company patent that has not been asserted in an NPE-style campaign. The related '719 litigation/Rohde & Schwarz activity (2018–2019) shows Tektronix will assert multi-domain instrument patents against direct competitors (Rohde & Schwarz), which is the realistic assertion profile for the '870 patent: competitor-on-competitor, not troll-on-industry.

One contradiction to flag. The prior "Patent summary" section noted no CAFC or district-court matter naming this patent, and the litigation summary reached the same conclusion. My searches are consistent with both — I found no litigation or appeal touching US 10,557,870, and no PTAB proceeding either. There is no contradiction among the sections; the null results reinforce each other.

Recommended next steps

1. Accept the null result, but verify directly. If you are a defendant, confirm the ODP/PTAB E2E null at the source: run 10557870 against the PTAB Endpoint API and the PTAB E2E "Patent Number" search (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/), and run both 10,557,870 and the parent 9,500,676 against CourtListener's RECAP docket search and PACER. My conclusion rests on the structured ODP block plus public aggregation; I could not query PACER/PTAB APIs directly with the tools available.
2. If you intend to file the first IPR, do your § 315(b) date math now (service date + 12 months) and target the claim-drafting seam identified above: independent claims 1 and 10 do not require the spectrum time indicator, so a validity challenge to the broadest claims can focus purely on the "select a second series of signal samples based on the time base… and perform a frequency domain transform on it" limitation — the core, and arguably the most vulnerable, inventive hook.
3. Do not cite the Rohde & Schwarz IPRs as if they involved this patent. They are useful only as (a) an illustration that Tektronix defends its multi-domain patents competently at the Board — the '719 FWD ended with the challenged claims sustained, and (b) a source of Tektronix's amplification of how it characterizes the multi-domain instrument field. If you cite them in a brief, cite them to the correct patent numbers (8,675,719; 8,521,460).
4. No trial-stage milestones to track. With no institution, there is no institution-decision deadline, no oral hearing date, and no statutory 1-year § 316(a)(11) FWD due date running. Nothing is pending.

Confidence: High that no AIA trial proceeding exists for US 10,557,870 as of the ODP ingest and my search date (2026-09-29). Medium-high that none exists unindexed, given the additional aggregator searches returned nothing. The residual uncertainty is the ordinary one: a very recently filed petition may not yet be indexed.

I'll verify the assignment record and check for any post-issuance transfers.

Let me verify the reel/frame details and check for any subsequent transfers.

Let me pin down the reel/frame discrepancy and confirm no post-issuance transfers.

Assignment & Ownership Chain — US 10,557,870 B2

Method note / limitation: I do not have direct API access to the USPTO Assignment Center. Everything below is reconstructed from (a) the authoritative Google Patents full-text/legal-events record for this patent (which mirrors the recorded reel/frame), and (b) secondary indexes (uspto.report, patentleaderboard). Reel/frame values are quoted exactly as they appear in those sources. Where a datum is not in my sources, I say so rather than infer it. Verify directly at the USPTO Assignment Center or Assignment Search.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: None detected. The single-inventor structure is unremarkable for an engineer-authored instrument-UI patent. There is no inventor-departure or fire-sale precursor (see NPE signals).

Original assignee

Tektronix, Inc. (Oregon) — named as both original and current assignee on the issued patent; sole owner throughout.

• Business: Test & measurement instruments — oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, spectrum analyzers, signal generators. Founded 1946; Oregon's signature technology company.
• Shipped product embodying the claims: Yes. Tektronix markets this exact capability under "Spectrum View" (independent frequency-domain controls inside an oscilloscope, with time-correlated spectrum), citing "Key functionality from the MDO4000 Series" and advertising "Patented acquisition technology." The MDO4000 Mixed Domain Oscilloscope line is described by Tektronix as enabling "time correlated spectrum analyzer, oscilloscope and logic analyzer."
• Corporate status / ownership chain:
  • 2007 — acquired by Danaher Corp. for $2.85B.
  • 2016 — spun out of Danaher as part of Fortive Corp. (so at this patent's 2016 filing date, the effective parent was Fortive).
  • Ongoing — Tektronix operates as a Fortive subsidiary. Reported (OregonLive, Sept. 2024) that Fortive is spinning the precision technologies segment — Tektronix, Keithley, Anderson-Negele, Setra, Pacific Scientific — into a standalone public company in 2025. (I did not confirm the final entity name in this session; treat the pending-spinoff detail as reported, not confirmed.)
• Status: Operating (no bankruptcy, no dissolution, no acquisition by a non-practicing entity).

Assignment timeline

The record contains exactly one recorded assignment — the original inventor-to-company transfer. There are no post-issuance assignments, no security interests, no name changes recorded against this patent, and no transfer to any separate IP-holding or licensing entity.

• 2012-03-16 (executed/effective) / recorded 2016-10-19 — Reel 040067/0263
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Waldo, Gary J.
  • Assignee: Tektronix, Inc. (Oregon)
  • Correspondent: Not captured in my sources. Google Patents' legal-events record exposes the reel/frame, assignor, assignee, and effective date, but not the recording correspondent/attorney. I will not fabricate this field. It is verifiable only by pulling reel 040067/0263 in the Assignment Center. Given this is the sole, ordinary employee-inventor assignment to a large operating company, a single correspondent here would carry no NPE significance.
  • Context: Internal/original acquisition — standard employer-assignment of a Tektronix employee's invention. No fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter character. Note the ~4.5-year lag between the 2012 effective date and the 2016 recording, which is consistent with the assignment being tied to / re-recorded in connection with the 2016 continuation filing (see note below).

Related record found on the parent (flag for cross-check): Secondary indexing of the parent application (US 2013/0044134 A1 → US 9,500,676 B2) shows a Tektronix assignment from Waldo with Reel/Frame 039185/0335, also effective 2012-03-16. This appears to be the parent-record counterpart of the same inventor assignment; the two reel/frames (039185/0335 vs. 040067/0263) should be confirmed as separate recordings against the parent vs. the continuation, respectively. This is not a second link in the chain — it is the same assignor→assignee event, and it does not change the conclusion that Tektronix is the sole owner.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10557870
    2011 : Provisional filed by Gary J Waldo
    2012 : Inventor assignment executed to Tektronix
         : Parent application filed
    2016 : Continuation application filed
         : Assignment recorded reel 040067 0263
    2020 : Patent issued to Tektronix

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — in the restricted sense defined for this exercise ("only the original assignment"). The assignment record for US 10,557,870 consists of a single, ordinary employer assignment (Waldo → Tektronix, effective 2012-03-16, recorded 2016-10-19, reel 040067/0263) with no post-issuance activity of any kind. There is therefore no chain to score against the NPE signals — and, importantly, not one of the eight signals is present.

Substantively, the ownership picture is benign rather than opaque: the patent has been held continuously by the original operating-company assignee (Tektronix, Inc.), which practices the claims in its Spectrum View / MDO4000 mixed-domain oscilloscope products and has not assigned, securitized, or asserted the patent. This is the profile of a defensive operating-company portfolio patent, not an NPE asset. I decline to label it "NPE" on the strength of naming or absence alone, and I could not access reel 040067/0263 directly to capture the recording correspondent — the one field I was unable to populate.

Verification link: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search "10557870") — pull reel 040067/0263 to confirm the correspondent and to check for any records my secondary sources may have missed.

I'll verify the patent and its cited references against primary sources.

Let me verify the remaining two examiner-cited references.

Let me verify the family-cited references that bear on the zoom/frequency-domain features.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,557,870 B2

0. Confirmation of the target document

I confirmed the record against the Google Patents full-text for US 10,557,870 B2 ("Apparatus and method for time correlated signal acquisition and viewing"; Tektronix, Inc.; inventor Gary J. Waldo; app. 15/294,522 filed 2016-10-14; granted 2020-02-11; priority 2011-08-19). I did not substitute the similarly-numbered U.S. 7,552,870 or any other number. Everything below is keyed strictly to 10,557,870.

Threshold point on the citing set. The authoritative record for 10,557,870 lists exactly three (3) examiner-cited references ("Patent Citations (3)"). This is noticeably narrower than its parent, US 9,500,676 B2, whose record lists twelve (12) citations. Because 10,557,870 is a continuation of 13/403,319, the examiner carried only three references forward onto the face of the '870. I flag this explicitly because it means any "prior art for 10,557,870" list keyed to the parent's 12 references would be over-inclusive; the three below are the references actually of record on this patent.

Governing law / critical date. The effective filing date chain (provisional 61/525,492, 2011-08-19) predates March 16, 2013, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies. Using the earliest priority date (2011-08-19), the § 102(b) critical date is 2010-08-19. All three cited references published before that date and therefore qualify as prior art under § 102(b).

1. The three examiner-cited references (of record on 10,557,870)

Reference A — US 2002/0183948 A1

(granted as US 6,810,341 B2)

Description. A signal-analysis system for rotating machinery. It acquires and digitizes a physical signal via a DAQ device (A/D conversion → digital samples → CPU), computes a joint time-frequency representation, displays time-frequency plot information visually indicating order components, receives user input selecting points/regions on that plot, determines an order-component trajectory, builds a modified coefficient array, and generates a time-domain signal (inverse transform) for presentation. The signal direction of the transform is time-frequency → time, i.e., the reverse of the '870.

§ 102 assessment — does NOT anticipate any claim of the '870. Discloses: digitizing a signal into samples (claim 1 element 3), a processor, and display of a time-frequency/spectral view; and receiving user input selecting a region (conceptually near claim 17's "user input selecting a time period"). Missing for anticipation of independent claims 1/10/17: (i) a time-domain graticule and a frequency-domain graticule on one display; (ii) generation of a time-domain waveform from a first series of samples in a time graticule; (iii) selecting a second series of the signal samples based on the time base corresponding to a user-identified time period and FFT'ing that subset forward into a spectrum; (iv) the spectrum time indicator. Its transform runs backward, so it cannot teach "perform a frequency domain transform on the second series … to generate a frequency domain waveform." Best role: § 103 background art on interactive region-selection of a displayed transform. Potentially anticipates: none.

Reference B — US 7,650,589 B2

(published as US 2005/0039162 A1)

Description. A graphical, function-block development environment for specifying and performing signal-analysis functions across multiple instruments/virtual instruments. Each draggable function block performs a signal operation "continuously upon selection," provides outputs to a GUI display, to other function blocks, or to an external device. Notably, some blocks are polymorphic and may "operate on signal data in the time domain or the frequency domain."

§ 102 assessment — does NOT anticipate any claim of the '870. This is a software-architecture / GUI-programming reference. It generically discloses receiving user input through a GUI and displaying resulting signals, and mentions time-vs-frequency polymorphism. But it discloses no test-and-measurement instrument with digitized samples sharing a time base, no time-domain graticule/frequency-domain graticule pair, no time-base-driven sample-subset selection, and no spectrum time indicator. It cannot anticipate claims 1, 10, or 17 — each of which requires the time-base sample-selection core. Best role: § 103 secondary art touching the "receive input from a user" / "display in a GUI" language (elements of claims 1, 10, 17). Potentially anticipates: none.

Reference C — US 2010/0153044 A1 ← most relevant of the three

Description. A signal analyzer producing first and second frequency-analysis ranges in parallel via first and second signal paths (different DDC LO frequencies and decimation rates) that FFT stored time-domain data. The display shows, per the '044 disclosure, a first display area with a time-vs-power overview, a second display area with a time-vs-voltage waveform, and a third display area with a spectrum waveform. Critically, it uses range bars — "a first range bar 58 … indicates an analysis range corresponding to a waveform displayed in the second display area 52," and "a second range bar 60 indicates a range corresponding to a waveform displayed in the third display area 54" — plus a zoom function magnifying a portion of the (frequency) analysis range.

Why this is the closest art. It discloses nearly every environmental element of claim 1: a display combining time-domain and frequency-domain (spectrum) areas; stored, digitized time-domain data; FFT generation of frequency-domain data; and a graphical bar/indicator that shows which portion of the overall record a displayed spectrum corresponds to — the functional cousin of the '870's "spectrum time indicator."

§ 102 assessment — does NOT clearly anticipate claim 1/10/17. The gap is the inventive hook of the '870 (see the previously generated summary's identification of the time-base sample selection as the point of novelty):

• The '044's range bar reports the correspondence of an analysis (frequency-span) range / zoom window, not a user-identified time period within the time-domain waveform used as the FFT input window.
• It does not disclose "receiv[ing] input from a user identifying a time period within the time domain waveform" and then "select[ing] a second series of the signal samples based on the time base … that correspond to the identified time period." The '044 instead routes data through two parallel signal paths, rather than selecting a subset of one stored acquisition by time-base correspondence.
• It does not disclose a spectrum-time indicator whose width denotes the selected time duration (claims 6–7/15–16 family symmetry), nor the re-centering behavior of dependent claims 6–7.
  Because § 102 requires a single reference to disclose all elements arranged as claimed, the '044 falls short of anticipation — but it is the strongest § 103 candidate (alone or combined with Reference A's user-region-selection teaching or Reference B's GUI/display teaching to supply the "user input"/"display" mechanics).

Potentially anticipates: I assess none as a strict § 102 matter. If one were to give the claim terms their broadest reasonable construction (e.g., reading "range bar 60" as the claimed "spectrum time indicator" and the zoom-range selection as "identifying a time period"), the '044 is the only cited reference that even approaches independent claims 1, 10, and 17; that reading is, however, not supportable against the explicit "select a second series … based on the time base … corresponding to the [user-identified] time period" language.

2. Family-cited references (secondary; carried from the parent, NOT the '870's examiner set)

The '870 record also shows a "Family Cites Families (7)" group. These are not examiner citations to the '870; treat them as context/§ 103 candidates only:

3. Bottom-line § 102 conclusions

1. Of the three references of record on 10,557,870, none anticipates any of the 20 claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on a faithful reading. The independent claims (1 apparatus, 10 method, 17 CRM) are all built around the same hook — using the shared time base to select the second series of already-digitized samples that correspond to a user-identified time period in the time-domain waveform, then transforming that subset — and no cited reference discloses that selection mechanism.
2. Closest reference: US 2010/0153044 A1 (Reference C). It is the lead § 103 reference against independent claims 1/10/17 (and the zoom/indicator dependents), most plausibly combined with Reference A (user region-selection of a displayed transform) and/or Reference B (GUI-driven user input and display).
3. Reference A (US 2002/0183948 A1) and Reference B (US 7,650,589 B2) are § 103-type secondary art; neither is a standalone § 102 reference for any claim.
4. Critical-date validity: all three cited references published before 2011-08-19 (Spec. A: 2002-12-05; Spec. B: 2005-02-17 / 2010-01-19; Spec. C: 2010-06-17), so each is available as § 102(b) prior art against the '870's priority date.

Caveats

• Claim-to-reference mapping is my analyst assessment, not an Office or court holding. I have not re-run the '870's prosecution history beyond the legal-events shown (non-final action 2019-03-06; response 2019-09-10; allowance 2019-10-07), so I cannot state which specific claims/limitations each reference was used to reject. That mapping would require the full USPTO Office Action and applicant response in app. 15/294,522.
• The "Family Cites Families (7)" items are not examiner citations to the '870; I include them only as context and flag CN 101762732 B as post-critical-date.
• No litigation/PTAB determination of validity for this patent informed this § 102 analysis (consistent with the earlier litigation section, which found none); this is a document-based anticipation review only.
• The patent record itself notes legal status is an assumption; likewise, prior-art dates here are taken from the published bibliographic records, and a couple of machine-readable fields (e.g., the '044 application number rendered as "US20070516190") should be re-verified against the printed front page for formal citation use.

I'll ground this § 103 analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent page. Let me pull detail on the examiner-cited art and the relevant family/third-party citations.

Let me ground the remaining relevant references — particularly the oscilloscope spectrum-cursor and time-domain-instrument references — before building the combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,557,870 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note on dates: the system header for this session says 2026‑09‑29 while the task prompt says April 26, 2026. I flag the discrepancy rather than guess; it does not affect the analysis, which turns on art published well before the 2011 priority date.

Grounded in: the "Prior Art" section of the US 10,557,870 page (examiner Citations of record, Family Cites Families, and Similar Documents), verified against primary sources where possible. Where I could only retrieve a title or a secondary-source description, I say so.

1. Legal framework and the governing date

• Statute: Because the '870 patent is a continuation of application 13/403,319 (filed 2012‑02‑23) claiming priority to provisional 61/525,492 (2011‑08‑19), the pre‑AIA version of § 103 governs. All references below published in 2002–2011 and therefore qualify as prior art under pre‑AIA § 102(a), (b) and/or (e). The effective date for the obviousness inquiry is August 19, 2011.
• Standard: Graham v. John Deere factors (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). A combination is obvious where the references are analogous art, the elements are known, and there is an articulated reason (explicit or inferred from design incentives, market forces, or "common sense") to combine with a reasonable expectation of success. The claimed subject matter here is a predictable art — digital signal processing and oscilloscope user‑interface design — so the KSR "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" rationale applies with force.
• No claim of unexpected results or other secondary considerations is evidenced on the face of the patent. The stated benefit ("improve the capability and usability") is a design/ergonomics improvement, which is entitled to little patentable weight when implemented with known DSP and UI components.

Admissions in the '870 specification that narrow the gap: the Background concedes that modern digital oscilloscopes generate time‑domain waveforms, that "some instruments may include the capability to generate a spectrum or frequency domain display," and that a "digital processor … performs a frequency domain transform on the input signal." The alleged invention is therefore the control/selection of which samples are transformed and how the result is correlated and displayed — not the transform itself.

2. PHOSITA

A person having ordinary skill in the art as of August 2011 would be a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or equivalent experience) and 2–5 years designing test‑and‑measurement instrumentation, or a master's degree with fewer years. That person would be familiar with: oscilloscope acquisition architecture (ADC, acquisition memory, trigger, time base); FFT/windowed spectral analysis and the resolution‑bandwidth vs. window‑length tradeoff; "gated"/"zoomed" spectrum analysis; and front‑panel/soft‑key UI design for instruments. This is the level at which the asserted art is understood.

3. The references and what each actually teaches

R1 — US 2010/0153044 A1 (Nara; Tektronix International Sales GmbH), pub. 2010‑06‑17 (granted as US 8,374,812 B2) — examiner‑cited

A signal analyzer that displays, at the same time, a time‑vs‑power overview (1st display area), a time‑vs‑voltage waveform (2nd area), and a spectrum waveform (3rd area). It teaches:

• A user‑settable frequency/time analysis range with a zoom function ("If a user observes frequency domain data … and finds a noticeable portion, the user often wants to magnify the portion … to observe it in detail … the existing signal analyzer features a zoom function");
• Graphical range bars overlaid on the displays: "first range bar 58 … indicates an analysis range corresponding to a waveform displayed in the second display area" and "second range bar 60 indicates a range corresponding to a waveform displayed in the third display area" (i.e., a visual marker showing which portion of the time record corresponds to the displayed spectrum);
• The ranges are set by the user through an operation panel / mouse / keyboard;
• And, critically, an admission in the "Problems to be Resolved" section that the prior art ("patent documents 1 and 2") already "derive[d] the zoom‑displaying data of the second frequency analysis range from once stored data in post‑processes" — i.e., selecting a stored sub‑set of samples and transforming it was known.

Maps to: the dual‑graticule display, the user‑identified time period, the zoom capability, and (with claim 17) the spectrum time indicator.

R2 — US 6,681,191 B1 (Tektronix), filed 1999‑12‑21, issued 2004‑01‑20 — listed as a Similar Document; not cited by the examiner

A frequency‑domain analysis system built into a time‑domain instrument (oscilloscope). Directly teaches:

• An acquisition system with a time base digitizing an input signal into "a waveform record of digital data samples";
• A "movable and variable length frequency spectrum gate … applied to the digital data samples of the acquired waveform," with "controls that adjust a gate duration in seconds and a gate length in samples and positions the gate over the digital data samples of the waveform record";
• "The digital data samples of the waveform record within the gate are applied to a window filter"; a spectrum analysis generator then "generates frequency domain values over the gated waveform record";
• A position control that "adjusts the center position of the gate in relation to the trigger pulse";
• The stated desideratum to "provide a bridge between the time domain acquired waveform record and the frequency domain data."

Maps to: virtually the entirety of independent claim 1 — samples with a shared time base; a user‑identified, user‑positionable, variable‑width time period; selection of the second series of samples out of the stored record; and FFT of that series. This is the single most damaging reference and it was not relied upon by the examiner.

R3 — US 2002/0183948 A1 → US 6,810,341 B2 (Qian et al.; National Instruments) — examiner‑cited

Receives samples of an input signal sampled in time; performs a joint time‑frequency transform; displays a time‑frequency plot; and receives user input selecting points/regions of that representation, from which a time‑domain signal is reconstructed. Supports the concept of a user designating a region of a time‑correlated representation to drive the computation.

R4 — US 7,650,589 B2 (National Instruments) — examiner‑cited

Function‑block / graphical development environment for building signal‑analysis functions across multiple (virtual) instruments, including FFT/processing function blocks with drag‑and‑drop data flow. Its relevance is supporting the software/GUI implementation environment and the FFT block, not the specific selection/indication limitations.

R5 — US 2011/0093225 A1 (Ramesh & Pickerd; Tektronix), pub. 2011‑04‑21 — Family Cites Families

"Method of making frequency domain measurements on a time domain instrument." Teaches a real‑time oscilloscope with built‑in FFT spectral analysis computing frequency‑domain results from a time‑domain‑acquired waveform, including windowing and the record‑length/resolution‑bandwidth relationship (RBW = Fs·K/L). Reinforces that user‑selectable, windowed FFT analysis on an oscilloscope was a routine, well‑understood practice.

Secondary/title‑only and context references

• US 7,443,396 B2 ("Instrument having a virtual magnifying glass for displaying magnified portions of a signal waveform," listed in Family Cites Families): relevant to the zoom‑magnification limitation (claims 5, 14). I retrieved only the title/listing, not the full text — cited as supporting, not as a load‑bearing reference.
• US 9,020,016 B2 (Dobyns et al.; Tektronix), seen in PTAB petition excerpts: multi‑domain instrument with a time‑domain channel and a frequency‑domain channel receiving different input signals. Relevant to claims 8/19 (different signals). Cited cautiously — I did not verify its exact priority date relative to 2011‑08‑19.
• Hansen, US 4,802,098, discussed in the public IPR petition filings I retrieved: an oscilloscope that stores sequences a(m)/b(m) in acquisition memory and produces both the time‑domain display and the frequency‑domain spectrum from the same stored data. This is a secondary‑source description (a petitioner's brief), not the reference itself — used only to corroborate that common‑memory dual‑domain display was known and litigated, not as a formal ground.

4. Element‑by‑element mapping for independent claim 1

Result: a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1 as to all elements.

5. Independent claim 10 (method) and claim 17 (CRM)

• Claim 10 is the methodological mirror of claim 1 and is met by the same combination (R2's method of positioning a gate over stored samples and transforming the gated record; R1 as a method of simultaneously displaying and zooming).
• Claim 17 adds only "generate a spectrum time indicator configured to graphically illustrate a location of the selected time period with respect to the time‑domain waveform." R1's "second range bar 60," which "indicates a range corresponding to a waveform displayed in the [spectrum] display area," discloses exactly this indicator, and R2's gate 92 is likewise rendered over the waveform record. Claim 17 is therefore also prima facie obvious.

6. Dependent claims

Every dependent claim adds either (a) a feature disclosed in R1/R2, or (b) a predictable design/ergonomic choice (centering, dynamic refresh, pan/zoom knobs) that KSR treats as obvious absent unexpected results.

7. The combinations, and the motivation to combine

Ground 1 (strongest): R2 (US 6,681,191) as primary + R1 (US 2010/0153044) as secondary.
R2 supplies the selection‑of‑stored‑samples‑via‑gate + FFT engine and the position/duration controls; R1 supplies the simultaneous time/frequency graticule display, the range‑bar correlation indicator, and the zoom framework. Motivation: both are Tektronix oscilloscope/signal‑analyzer references addressing the same problem the '870 patent identifies — correlating a displayed spectrum to the time period from which it was computed and letting the user navigate the record. R2 expressly seeks to "provide a bridge between the time‑domain acquired waveform record and the frequency‑domain data," which is the very objective of the '870 claims. Combining a spectral‑gate engine with a dual‑graticule indicator/zoom UI yields no more than the predictable sum of the parts.

Ground 2: R2 + R5 (US 2011/0093225).
R5 confirms that built‑in FFT spectral analysis on a time‑domain instrument, including windowing and record‑length selection, was routine; it supplies a reason (improved dynamic range/accuracy) to move the gate/window spectrum feature onto an oscilloscope.

Ground 3: R1 + R3 (US 2002/0183948) + R4 (US 7,650,589).
R1 for display/indicator/zoom; R3 for user selection of a time‑correlated region driving a transform; R4 for the GUI/function‑block implementation with an FFT block. This is the combination most closely tracking the examiner's actual citations; it is a weaker articulation than Ground 1 because R3/R4 are more remote from the specific "select a sub‑series of the same stored samples by time base" limitation — that limitation is supplied cleanly only by R2.

Ground 4 (claim 17‑focused): R2 or R1 in further view of the range‑bar/gate indicator art, to the extent an examiner wants an explicit "indicator with a width representing the period." R1's range bar and R2's variable‑length gate each inherently show a width corresponding to the analyzed period (relevant to the '870 dependent/independent discussion of the indicator's width).

Why a PHOSITA would combine (the KSR reason‑giving):

1. Same field / analogous art: all references are test‑and‑measurement instruments or signal‑analysis software for them.
2. Same problem: analyzing a device under test in both the time and frequency domains, and letting the user choose which portion of the record to transform.
3. Predictable results: gating + FFT + a range‑bar UI are known, combinable building blocks; the combination does what each reference says it will do.
4. Design incentive / market forces: oscilloscope vendors (including the patent's own assignee, Tektronix, which owns R1, R2 and R5) were converging on multi‑domain instruments with correlated time/frequency navigation — evidenced by Tektronix's own contemporaneous filings (R1, R5) and the third‑party art (R3, R4).

8. Anticipated rebuttals and how they fare

• "R1 uses two parallel signal paths, not a selected sub‑series of one record." True as to R1 alone — which is precisely why R1 is best used as secondary art and R2 (movable gate over stored samples) supplies the claim‑1 core. R1's own background admits the stored‑data approach was known, undercutting any argument that selection‑of‑stored‑samples was novel.
• "No motivation to combine." Weak: common field, common problem, common assignee for R1/R2/R5, and an express goal in R2 of bridging the time and frequency domains.
• "The spectrum time indicator is the point of novelty." Undercut by R1's "second range bar 60" showing the range corresponding to the spectrum — a graphical indicator of the analyzed time period — and R2's rendered gate.
• "Dynamic update / zoom centering." These are predictable UI behaviors; absent evidence of unexpected results, they do not confer patentability.
• What the examiner may have leaned on to allow the claims: the record shows only three citations and a Notice of Allowance (2019‑10‑07). The most likely allowance basis was a narrow reading that the combination of (i) time‑base‑based selection of a second sample series and (ii) a width‑bearing spectrum time indicator was not explicitly shown. R2 largely closes that gap, which is the practical takeaway below.

9. Bottom line

Opinion: Independent claims 1, 10 and 17 and most dependents are, in my assessment, prima facie obvious under § 103 over the art already on the page — most powerfully over US 6,681,191 B1 in view of US 2010/0153044 A1 (both Tektronix), with US 2011/0093225 A1 as corroborating evidence that oscilloscope‑based FFT of a selected record was routine. The combination uses known elements (gate/window selection of stored samples; FFT; dual‑graticule display; range‑bar indicator; zoom/pan) to achieve a predictable result, and the motivation is supplied by the shared field, shared problem, and the '870 patent's own background admissions.

Confidence and caveats:

• High confidence in the bibliographic facts, the claim language, and the substance of R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 as summarized above (taken from Google Patents / primary text and family data).
• Medium confidence in the exact claim‑by‑claim reading of the untested full specifications, because I did not read every reference's complete specification word‑for‑word; the element mapping rests on abstracts, claims, and the detailed‑description excerpts I retrieved.
• Low‑confidence / flagged: US 7,443,396 B2 (title only), US 9,020,016 B2 (secondary‑source excerpts; priority date unverified), and Hansen US 4,802,098 (described only through a PTAB petition, not the reference itself). These are used as supporting context, not as load‑bearing grounds.
• This is a technical/analytical opinion, not a legal conclusion, and it does not account for any claim amendments, prosecution history (the 2019 Non‑Final Action and subsequent response are noted on the page but their substance was not retrieved), or a full invalidity‑contentions review. A definitive § 103 opinion would require the complete texts of R1–R5 and the prosecution file history.