US 4270177

I'll search for this patent across USPTO and CAFC docket sources.

Let me do targeted searches for any litigation or CAFC activity involving this specific patent number.

Search results for US 4,270,177 and CAFC 2026 activity

No CAFC 2026 docket activity found for this patent. I searched for appeals/litigation referencing 4270177 and found none. Note that several search hits used a "the '177 patent" shorthand but refer to different patents (e.g., U.S. 7,384,177 in IPR proceedings, and an NEC patent in IPR2025-XXXX). None of these are U.S. 4,270,177. This is expected: US 4,270,177's term ended 1999-06-20 ("Anticipated expiration," status "Expired – Lifetime"), so it would not be a live subject of 2026 Federal Circuit appeals.

Confusable identifiers that are NOT this patent (called out because the instruction is to interpret IDs literally — these literal matches exist elsewhere):

• JP 4270177 B2 — a Japanese patent (Yamaha Corp., registered 2009-03-06) for a keyboard device (鍵盤装置). Unrelated. (PDF)
• BE publication 4270177 — a 2025 Belgian publication (MediaTek Inc.) on graphical programming interfaces. Unrelated.
• BindingDB cid_4270177 — a chemical compound record. Unrelated.

---

Summary of US 4,270,177 A

Authoritative source: Google Patents US4270177A

Abstract (as published)

A digital amplitude control apparatus for a digital audio signal in which the output voltage of a linear-type potentiometer or attenuator connected across a DC power supply is converted into a digital signal by an A/D converter, the output voltage being linearly related to the manipulated variable of the slider; the digital signal is applied as an address signal to a memory which stores in its locations a series of amplitude control digital values with a desired amplitude-changing characteristic, thereby reading out the amplitude control value corresponding to the attenuation set by the potentiometer; and a digitized audio information signal to be amplitude-controlled is multiplied by the amplitude control value read out of the memory by means of a digital multiplier.

Plain-language overview of the independent claim

There is exactly one independent claim — claim 1 (claims 2–9 all depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 1; the patent lists 9 claims total). Advisory: claim 7 ("...according to claim 1...") and claim 9 ("...according to claim 1...") introduce notable added subject matter but are still dependent claims, not independent ones.

Claim 1 — the core apparatus. Three cooperating elements:

1. A manipulatable digital signal generator that produces a digital signal substantially linearly related to the manipulated variable (i.e., the knob/fader position maps linearly to a digital number — as opposed to the nonlinear log-taper analog pot of the prior art).
2. A memory (e.g., ROM) storing a series of digital amplitude control values with a predetermined amplitude-changing characteristic (e.g., a log/decibel table). The digital signal from element 1 is fed in as the address, so the stored value for the selected position is read out.
3. A digital multiplier that multiplies the incoming digital audio signal by the amplitude control value read from memory.

Put simply: instead of using an expensive nonlinear (log-taper) potentiometer feeding a high-resolution A/D converter to generate a 16-bit gain word, the invention uses a cheap linear pot and a low-bit A/D converter whose output merely selects a ROM address; the ROM holds the correct (e.g., 16-bit, dB-shaped) gain value. This moves the cost/complexity of the log characteristic into memory.

Notable dependent-claim features (for context)

• Claim 2: the generator is a linear potentiometer across a DC source plus an A/D converter.
• Claims 3–6: noise/hysteresis-immune address generation — a D/A converter plus level-shift producing upper/lower thresholds (X+, X−) and a window comparator that only triggers a new A/D conversion when the input moves outside a ±ΔX "insensible range" (with optional sample-and-hold and timing/self-oscillator variants, Figs. 3–8).
• Claim 7: two memories with different characteristics (sin/cos) feeding two multipliers receiving the same audio — the digital pan-pot of Fig. 10.
• Claim 8: the sine-curve and cosine-curve memory characteristics.
• Claim 9: the bit count of the control/address digital signal is less than the bit count of the digital audio signal (the core economy-of-bits insight; the spec cites ~0.25 dB as the human loudness difference limen).

Uncertainty note

The bibliographic and full-text data above come from the patent's Google Patents record and the full text you provided, which I treat as authoritative. I did not find any USPTO litigation, PTAB, or CAFC 2026 docket record for this specific number, and I am not aware of any. I cannot independently confirm the current recorded assignee chain beyond what the assignment record shows (Tokyo Shibaura Electric → Tokyo Shibaura Denki / Toshiba). Treat the patent as long expired and outside active 2026 appeal activity unless a contrary primary-source docket record is produced.

I'll run targeted searches on litigation-specific sources for this exact patent number.

Let me search litigation-specific databases directly.

Let me run a few final targeted checks on litigation aggregators.

Litigation search result: US Patent 4,270,177

Bottom line: I found no litigation — district court, CAFC, ITC, PTAB, or reexamination — involving U.S. Patent 4,270,177. No case with a plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, or filing date can be reported, because none surfaced on any of the litigation-focused sources I searched.

What I searched and what it returned

Critical filtering note — the "'177 patent" trap

Every promising-looking hit for a "'177 patent" in my searches refers to a different patent number, which is exactly the kind of false positive the task warned against. Concretely:

• U.S. 7,384,177 — asserted in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-00687 (M.D. Fla.). The "'177 Patent" in that litigation is 7,384,177 (claims 1–3, 5, 7–12, 14), litigated alongside the '940, '372, and '907 patents. The parties stipulated to judgment of non-infringement of that '177 patent (Dkt. 650). This is not US 4,270,177.
• U.S. 7,384,177 again appears in the Innovative Display Technologies / LG, Lenovo, VIZIO Delaware dispute (Case No. 13-cv-2109-RGA). Also not our patent.
• IPR2025-XXXX " '177 Patent" (Dell/Apple-style Fintiv briefing) and similar PTAB papers refer to other '177 patents. Not our patent.
• JP 4270177 B2 — Yamaha Corp. keyboard device (鍵盤装置), registered 2009-03-06. Not our patent.
• BE 4270177 — 2025 Belgian publication, MediaTek, graphical programming interfaces. Not our patent.
• BindingDB cid_4270177 — a chemical compound record. Not our patent.
• Various "§177" hits refer to 19 C.F.R. Part 177 ITC/CBP ruling proceedings (e.g., the Wirtgen/Caterpillar and Chamberlain/Nice matters), which are not patent-number matches at all.

Why the absence of litigation is consistent and expected

US 4,270,177 issued 1981-05-26 and its term ended 1999-06-20 ("Anticipated expiration"; Google Patents status "Expired – Lifetime"). A patent whose enforceable term closed in 1999 cannot be the subject of live 2026 district court, CAFC, or ITC enforcement activity, and it is far too old to fall within the AIA post-grant regime (IPR/PGR/CBM petitions are limited to patents subject to the AIA's first-inventor-to-file provisions). I also found no historical enforcement record.

This is consistent with the earlier-generated summary in your message, which likewise reported no litigation or CAFC activity for this number and flagged the same confusable identifiers. No contradiction to flag.

Two caveats on dates

1. Date discrepancy: your task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while my operating instructions state today is 2026-09-27. I searched without date-windowing on the patent number, so this discrepancy does not change the result, but I'm flagging it per the "flag contradictions" instruction.
2. Search depth: I hit the tool-call limit before I could run every planned query (e.g., a direct Justia docket-string query and a direct PTAB party-string query returned only a step-limit message, not "no results"). So my conclusion is based on a substantial but not exhaustive set of searches.

Honest uncertainty statement

I did not find any litigation involving US 4,270,177, and I am not aware of any. I cannot prove a universal negative — a pre-1999 enforcement action might exist in a paper (pre-PACER-electronic) docket that is not well indexed online. If you need a definitive negative, the reliable next steps would be: (1) a USPTO Patent Assignment / litigation-history search keyed strictly to 4,270,177, (2) a full-text search of Westlaw/Lexis and RPX/Unified Patents Portal filtered to the exact number, and (3) a PACER docket search for the exact number (excluding 7,384,177). Based on everything available to me, the answer is: no known litigation.

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings on file for US 4,270,177. The canonical structured block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM for this patent. Breakdown by status: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB track record to lean on — not because the patent is "hardened," but because it is dead. US 4,270,177's term ended 1999-06-20 ("Anticipated expiration"; status "Expired – Lifetime"). AIA trials only became available 2012-09-16 (IPR/PGR, 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 321) with CBM review running 2012–2020 under § 18 of the AIA. The patent therefore expired roughly thirteen years before any AIA trial mechanism existed, and no petitioner could ever have filed one. The absence of PTAB activity here is a jurisdiction/timing artifact, not evidence that the claims were validated.

---

Proceedings by number

None. There are no proceeding numbers to report. Per the operating constraints, I will not invent any. Explicitly, the following do not exist for this patent:

• No IPR (e.g., no IPR20xx-xxxxx) against US 4,270,177.
• No PGR against US 4,270,177.
• No CBM against US 4,270,177.
• No PTAB Final Written Decision, institution decision, or denial on this number.
• No PTAB appeal to the Federal Circuit (no CAFC docket exists for this patent — consistent with the earlier finding in the Patent summary section above).

Confusable identifiers — do not conflate

Consistent with the "interpret identifiers literally" rule, the following surfaced in search and are different things, none of which is a PTAB proceeding on US 4,270,177:

• JP 4270177 B2 — a Japanese patent (Yamaha Corp., registered 2009-03-06) for a keyboard device (鍵盤装置). (PDF) Not a PTAB matter, and a Japanese (not US) right.
• IPR proceedings involving U.S. 7,384,177 — a different US patent number that appears when searching the string "177 patent." Not this patent.
• U.S. 7,388,177 / 7,384,177-family shorthand in various opinions — unrelated.
• Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp. (D. Del. Civ. No. 13-453-SLR; see the discussion of IPR estoppel and the "'270 patent" redundancy bus) — this is a litigation involving Toshiba and mentions IPR estoppel, but the patents at issue are memory-controller patents (the '270, '573, '822, '788, '742, '431, '819 patents), not US 4,270,177. (case-law.vlex.com summary) Treat any search hit pairing "Toshiba" + "IPR" + "177" with suspicion — none is this patent.

---

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested claims. All nine claims of US 4,270,177 — independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–9 — are UNTESTED at the PTAB. None has been canceled, and none has been sustained in an AIA trial. There is no narrowing of this patent through IPR/PGR/CBM, and therefore no surviving-claims list to hand a defendant. The claim set stands exactly as it issued on 1981-05-26.

Estoppel landscape. Because no AIA trial was ever instituted, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to any party. There is no petitioner, no privy, and no "grounds raised or reasonably could have been raised" bar. Practically, this is moot: the patent is expired, so there is no live infringement posture to defend and no estoppel to manage.

Pattern signals. None present:

• No repeat petitioner (there is no petitioner at all).
• No patent-owner PTAB appeal activity (no PTAB proceeding to appeal from).
• No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain — Unified and similar entities target in-force, asserted patents; an expired 1981 patent in the pre-AIA audio-DSP art offers no such target. No evidence of Unified Patents, RPX, or any other aggregator involvement.
• I found no evidence that US 4,270,177 was ever asserted in district court litigation. I cannot prove a negative across all dockets, so treat "never asserted" as not affirmatively confirmed rather than established.

Why the analysis is short. The other category of challenge that could theoretically touch a long-expired patent — ex parte reexamination — is likewise not reflected in any record I found, and in any event the expired status eliminates the economic incentive. The patent belongs to the 1979–1981 foundational era of digital audio level control (the "move the log curve into ROM" concept) and has passed fully into the public domain.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and someone cites US 4,270,177 against you: say so plainly — there is no PTAB activity to invoke, and there cannot be. Demand the asserting party produce (a) proof of an unexpired term or a valid term extension, and (b) the operative claim. The patent expired 1999-06-20 and has been in the public domain for over 26 years. Any demand letter resting on it should be treated as meritless on its face.
2. Do not cite a PTAB FWD, because none exists. There is no institution decision, no oral hearing date, no statutory one-year FWD deadline, and no CAFC appeal docket to monitor. Any representation to the contrary — including a citation to a "Final Written Decision on the '177 patent" — is almost certainly a misidentification of U.S. 7,384,177 or another patent, and should be challenged with the correct document.
3. Screening step for your team: if you encounter a docket or demand that references "the '177 patent," confirm the full number and the assignee before relying on it. The overwhelming majority of "177 + PTAB" search results point to unrelated US and Japanese rights. This patent's assignee chain is Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co., Ltd. → Tokyo Shibaura Denki K.K. (recorded 1980-12-15) → Toshiba Corp.
4. The absence of PTAB activity is itself the signal: for a well-asserted patent in force during the AIA era, IPRs would be expected. Here the patent died before the AIA existed — so the correct conclusion is not "hardened patent," but "no IPR-based defense is needed because there is no live patent."

Caveats: I could not independently verify the absence of all historical litigation or ex parte reexamination across every USPTO and court system; my statements rest on the canonical ODP-sourced "no AIA proceedings" block plus targeted searches that surfaced no contrary primary-source record. I do not fabricate proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions, and none are reported above.

I'll attempt to pull the recorded assignment data for this patent from primary sources.

I could not retrieve reel/frame metadata — my searches against Assignment Center / the legacy Patent Assignment Search returned no record-level data for this patent (the hits were the patent text itself plus confusable identifiers). Rather than fabricate reel/frame numbers, I flag each unretrieved field below. What is in the authoritative Google Patents legal-events record is reproduced faithfully.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• No mass-departure signal. All four inventors are named as assignors to the corporate employer in the single recorded assignment, and they are not named as assignors to anyone else. There is no evidence of inventors departing and retaining rights, which is the precursor pattern you flagged.
• Corroboration of long tenure (one inventor): a later Toshiba patent, US 5,729,224 (granted 1998-03-17), names "Yoshiyuki Ishizawa, Yokohama" as an inventor and is assigned to Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba. Same uncommon romanization, same technical domain (digital signal processing, Toshiba), ~19 years after the 1979 filing. This is a name-match inference, not a documentary confirmation, but it is consistent with the inventors remaining Toshiba employees rather than exiting to monetize the patent.
• Surname caution: "Tanaka" is among the most common Japanese surnames, so the corresponding later Toshiba hits I saw should not be treated as the same person.

Original assignee

Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co., Ltd. is the assignee named on the face of the issued patent (Google Patents "Original Assignee"). The assignment recorded 1980-12-15 names the assignee as TOKYO SHIBAURA DENKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA — this is the romanized Japanese-language corporate name (東京芝浦電気株式会社) of the same company, not a different acquirer. Google Patents' "Current Assignee" field lists Toshiba Corp., consistent with the company later being known as Toshiba Corporation.

• Primary line of business: diversified electrical/electronics manufacturer — heavy electrical equipment, consumer electronics, semiconductors, and (relevant here) professional and broadcast audio. This patent sits in Toshiba's 1979-era PCM/digital-audio activity.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Not verifiable from the sources I could reach. Toshiba was unambiguously an operating manufacturer of audio and digital signal-processing equipment in this period, so practice of the claims is plausible, and the breadth of later citing patents (RCA, Thomson-CSF, JVC, Perkin-Elmer, Codex) shows the subject matter was commercially live. But I have no primary evidence (product literature, a specific model) tying a shipping product to claims 1–9, so I will not assert it.
• Current status: Operating. Toshiba remained a listed public company until it was taken private in 2023 by a Japan Industrial Partners–led consortium and delisted from the Tokyo Stock Exchange (Dec. 2023); the memory business was carved out earlier as Kioxia. I am reasonably confident in this corporate history but have not re-verified it against a primary filing in this session — treat the 2023 take-private date as medium-confidence.
• Class note: the patent carries H03G3/002 (Control of digital or coded signals), the correct classification for a digital-domain gain control.

Assignment timeline

Source of record: Google Patents legal events for US4270177A and the USPTO Assignment Center (legacy surface: assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Exactly one assignment event is of record. Reel/frame numbers were not retrievable in this session and are therefore left blank rather than guessed.

• 1980-12-15 (date as shown; Google Patents does not label whether this is the execution date or the recordation date) — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignors: ENDOH KENJIRO; ISHIZAWA YOSHIYUKI; IWASAKI KOJI; TANAKA MASANORI
  • Assignee: TOKYO SHIBAURA DENKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA
  • Correspondent of record: not retrieved. Separate note: the prosecuting agent of record on the patent is Oblon, Fisher, Spivak, McClelland & Maier (shown as the 代理机构 on the patent's bibliographic record). That is the prosecution correspondent and is not evidence of the assignment correspondent — do not conflate the two.
  • Context: Formalization of the inventors' assignment to their corporate employer, recorded roughly 18 months after the 1979-06-20 filing and about 5 months before the 1981-05-26 grant. The change in the assignee's romanized corporate name (Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co., Ltd. → Tokyo Shibaura Denki Kabushiki Kaisha) indicates a name-form/record correction, not an arm's-length transfer to a new party.

• 1999-06-20 — Anticipated expiration; legal status "Expired – Lifetime." Not an assignment — listed because it forecloses any post-1999 transfer being legally meaningful.

No post-issuance assignments of record. No security agreements, no mergers, no change-of-name filings, no releases, no corrective assignments beyond the single 1980 entry. The recording chain simply stops at the original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 4270177
    1979 : Application filed by Tokyo Shibaura Electric
         : Four Toshiba engineers named as inventors
    1980 : Inventors assign to Tokyo Shibaura Denki
    1981 : US 4270177 issued
    1999 : Patent term expires
    2023 : Toshiba Corp taken private and delisted

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — with the affirmative finding that the record shows zero NPE signals.

Justification: the entire recorded ownership history of US 4,270,177 consists of a single pre-issue conveyance dated 1980-12-15, by which inventors ENDOH, ISHIZAWA, IWASAKI, and TANAKA assigned to TOKYO SHIBAURA DENKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA; there are no post-issuance assignments, and the patent's term ended 1999-06-20 ("Expired – Lifetime"). This falls squarely within your rubric's "no records, or only the original assignment" definition of Insufficient data, and none of signals 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, or 7 can fire on a chain of length one. Caveat: the 1980-12-15 reel/frame and correspondent of record were not retrievable in this session, so the negative findings on signals 2 and 3 rest on the absence of any entry rather than on a read of the recorded documents; a manual pull at Assignment Center by patent number 4270177 would close that gap, though on a 1999-expired Toshiba patent I would not expect it to change the verdict.

I'll research each cited prior-art reference. Let me start with targeted searches for the most technically relevant references.

Let me research the remaining cited references and the key "digital attenuators" reference.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 4,270,177 ("Digital amplitude control for digital audio signal")

Step 0 — Literal number check (per your strict rule)

Searched the literal string 4270177. The only granted U.S. patent matching is US 4,270,177 A, application US06/050,215, Endoh et al., original assignee Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co., Ltd., filed/granted 1979‑06‑20 / 1981‑05‑26. Confusable-but-unrelated literal matches (JP 4270177 B2, BE 4270177, BindingDB cid_4270177) were already segregated in the prior section and are excluded here. Everything below is keyed to US 4,270,177 only.

I could not retrieve full verbatim texts for several of the foreign (GB) references within this session's tool budget. Where a description rests on the reference title, assignee, and the '177 specification's own discussion rather than on full text I read, I say so explicitly. Treat those descriptions as verification-pending rather than confirmed.

---

Step 1 — Statutory posture of the citations

The '177 application was filed 1979‑06‑20 (pre‑AIA; §§ 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g) apply). The §102(b) one‑year critical date is therefore 1978‑06‑20.

Key finding: 13 of the 14 examiner‑cited references published before 1978‑06‑20 and so stand as §102(b) art (patented or described in a printed publication more than one year before filing). Only US 4,159,524 (Siemens) falls inside the one‑year window (published 1979‑06‑26, six days after the filing), so it is properly §102(a)/(e) art (its DE counterpart, DE 2 703 649 A1, published 1978‑12‑14 — before filing but within one year — supports a §102(a) "printed publication" theory, not §102(b)).

Note also: the "Cited By (21)" list on the record is forward citation (post‑dating) and is not prior art to the '177 patent. Likewise the specification's own FIG. 1 apparatus (log‑linear pot 4 + linear A/D 3 + multiplier 2) is applicant‑admitted prior art and is usable against claims 1–2.

---

Step 2 — The 14 cited references, with dates and claim mapping

---

Step 3 — Reference-by-reference: description and §102 analysis

Group A — The two most relevant references

11. GB 1 490 531 A — "Digital attenuators" (NTT), pub. 1977‑11‑02, §102(b).

• Description (based on its family, not full text I read): NTT's digital attenuator family — priority 1973‑10‑08, GB application 40786/74, granted/laid‑open 1977‑11‑02 — covers attenuation of a digital signal. Its siblings, US 4,004,140 ("Digital attenuator") and US 4,118,785 ("Method and apparatus for digital attenuation by pattern shifting"), indicate the NTT approach attenuates by bit‑pattern shifting rather than by a memory‑table lookup.
• §102 mapping: The single most on‑point citation on the "digital attenuation of a digital signal" concept. It is the reference an examiner would use against the attenuation/multiply element of claim 1 and against the bit‑width/economy concept of claim 9. Caveat: because its mechanism appears to be pattern shifting (not a ROM addressed by a linearly‑derived address), it does not appear to disclose the memory‑stores‑the‑amplitude‑characteristic element; it is better characterized as §102(b)/§103 art on the attenuator sub‑element than as a clean §102 anticipation of claim 1.

14. US 4,159,524 A — Siemens, pub. 1979‑06‑26 (DE priority 1977‑01‑28), §102(a)/102(e).

• Description (verified from the text retrieved): A multiplying digital‑to‑analog converter with a coefficient store KS holding digital coefficients that are read out by address signals A2 from an address register AR; the products of analog signals and the addressed coefficients are summed in a summation stage. Includes a two‑channel embodiment (integrators producing AI/AQ) for a two‑channel digital equalizer.
• §102 mapping: Discloses (i) a memory addressed by a digital address whose output is a stored coefficient, and (ii) a multiplying element using that stored coefficient — i.e., the structural core of claim 1 elements (b) and (c), and the two‑channel / two‑coefficient architecture of claims 7–8 (sin/cos pan‑pot). Caveat: Siemens multiplies an analog signal by a digital coefficient (via a multiplying DAC), whereas claims 1/7/8 require multiplying a digital audio input signal by a digital value from memory. That difference is essential to claim 1 and defeats a clean §102 reading; Siemens is strong §103 combination art and strong §102 art as to elements (b)/(c) in isolation.

Group B — A/D conversion and noise/hysteresis circuitry (claims 2–6)

1. US 3,613,112 A (Ragen), pub. 1971‑10‑12, §102(b). Ramp‑generator + comparator assemblage + oscillator + counter A/D system with input multiplexing, voltage‑divider input scaling, self‑calibration logic, and a "presettable comparator." This is directed at the A/D conversion element of claim 2 and at the comparator/threshold structure of claims 3 and 5; its multiplexing also touches the multichannel concept of the FIG. 9 embodiment. It does not disclose the memory‑log‑table‑plus‑multiplier combination of claim 1.

2. US 3,641,563 A (Litton), pub. 1972‑02‑08, §102(b). A converter with a preliminary digital conversion from which an analog error signal is derived, corrected for offset/switching error, then re‑converted — and it explicitly uses sample‑and‑hold circuits (sin θ / cos θ inputs) feeding a summing circuit. Directly relevant to the sample‑and‑hold elements of claims 4 and 6 and the error/threshold comparison of claims 3/5. Its sin/cos resolver input is also a loose analog to the sin/cos pan‑pot of claims 7–8, but the detection function differs (angle sensing vs. audio panning).

3. US 3,790,910 A (Garrett), pub. 1974‑02‑05, §102(b). Conditioning circuitry for a variable‑frequency sensor → digital. Bears only on the generic transducer → A/D notion in claim 2; no amplitude control, memory table, or audio multiplier.

8. US 3,972,626 A (General Electric), pub. 1976‑08‑03, §102(b). Autoranging digital luxmeter — an A/D instrument with range switching. Marginal; at most §102(b)/§103 art on claim 2's converter element. No bearing on claims 1, 7–9.

Group C — Memory/addressing and generic digital handling

4. GB 1 385 024 A (EMI), pub. 1975‑02‑26, §102(b). "Digital signal handling techniques" (title‑level knowledge only). Generic digital‑signal handling; weak §102 art against the broad claim 1 memory/multiplier concept.

5. GB 1 410 816 A (Western Electric), pub. 1975‑10‑22, §102(b). "Digital devices" (title‑level). Potentially relevant to the addressable digital memory element of claim 1; not to the audio/amplitude‑control combination.

6. GB 1 411 788 A (R. J. P. Jones), pub. 1975‑10‑29, §102(b). "Electronic calculating machines" (title‑level). Arithmetic/number‑handling; at most background for the digital multiplication in claim 1.

7. GB 1 423 421 A (ITT), pub. 1976‑02‑04, §102(b). Electronic control of TV receiver operation via stored/digital control values. Relevant conceptually to claim 1's "stored control values used to control a signal" but in a video‑control (not digital‑audio amplitude) setting; §102(b)/§103 art only.

13. GB 1 503 797 A (Texas Instruments), pub. 1978‑03‑15, §102(b). Broadcast‑receiver channel search/selection (digital tuning with stored channel data). Bears only on address generation/selection in claim 1; no amplitude control or audio multiplier.

Group D — Digital filters / stored‑coefficient multipliers

9. US 4,011,438 A (Motorola), pub. 1977‑03‑08, §102(b). Simplified digital MTI filter — digital multiply‑and‑accumulate. §102(b) art on the digital multiplier of claim 1; no memory amplitude table, no audio attenuation, no lineal‑pot addressing.

10. US 4,044,241 A (ESL), pub. 1977‑08‑23, §102(b). Adaptive matched digital filter — digital multiplies weighted by stored, adaptable coefficients. Relevant to claim 1 elements (b)+(c) (coefficient memory feeding a multiplier) and by extension to the two‑characteristic memory idea of claims 7–8, but the coefficients are filter taps, not amplitude/attenuation values addressed by a fader position.

12. US 4,064,396 A (Sangamo Weston), pub. 1977‑12‑20, §102(b). Dynamic linearization system for a radiation gauge — a memory holding correction values addressed by the sensor output to impose a predetermined (nonlinear) transfer characteristic on the signal. Of the cited set, this is the reference closest to the invention's core architectural insight — moving a nonlinear characteristic into an address‑addressed memory table (claim 1 element (b)). But it linearizes a radiation gauge rather than multiplying an audio signal, so it lacks the digital audio multiplier (element (c)) and the fader/manipulated‑variable address; §102(b)/§103 art only.

---

Step 4 — Bottom line on anticipation

No single one of the 14 cited references appears to disclose every element of claim 1 as arranged — i.e., (a) a manipulatable generator producing a digital signal substantially linearly related to the manipulated variable, (b) a memory storing amplitude control values with a predetermined amplitude characteristic and addressed by that signal, and (c) a digital multiplier multiplying a digital audio input by the memory output. That is presumably why the patent granted, and it is consistent with the record (the examiner cited these as element‑level references, not as a single unit anticipation).

Applying your requested format, the honest §102 assessment is:

• Claim 1 (independent): No clean §102 anticipation on the cited record. The nearest single references are GB 1 490 531 (digital attenuation) and US 4,159,524 (memory‑addressed coefficient + multiply) — each discloses parts of claim 1, neither the whole. Strongest combination (§103) pairing: GB 1 490 531 + US 4,159,524, optionally with US 4,064,396 for the stored‑nonlinear‑characteristic idea.
• Claims 2–6 (pot/A‑D, comparator hysteresis, sample‑and‑hold): best attacked by US 3,613,112 and US 3,641,563 (plus US 3,790,910, US 3,972,626 as cumulative secondary art). These references genuinely disclose the A/D, comparator‑window, and sample‑and‑hold machinery the dependent claims recite.
• Claims 7–8 (two memories, two multipliers, sin/cos): best attacked by US 4,159,524 (two‑channel coefficient summation: AI/AQ) and, secondarily, the digital‑filter references US 4,044,241 / US 4,011,438.
• Claim 9 (control/address bits fewer than audio bits): best attacked (or at least most closely met) by GB 1 490 531 and its NTT family (US 4,004,140; US 4,118,785), which concern digital attenuation of a digital signal at reduced control width.
• Admitted prior art (FIG. 1 of the specification): log‑linear pot + linear A/D + digital multiplier — usable under §102/§103 against the general apparatus context of claims 1–2.

Caveats and confidence

• Bibliographic dates and the citation list are taken from the patent's own record (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO file) and the full text you supplied, which I treat as authoritative. I did not retrieve the full texts of GB 1 385 024, GB 1 410 816, GB 1 411 788, GB 1 423 421, GB 1 490 531, and GB 1 503 797; their descriptions above are limited to verified ownership/date/title data plus the family evidence I did find for GB 1 490 531 (US 4,004,140 / US 4,118,785 / JPS 55‑34613 B2, all NTT, priority 1973‑10‑08). Verify those six against their full texts before relying on any specific anticipation theory.
• §102 sub‑section assignments assume an invention date on or about the 1979‑06‑20 filing date; an earlier proven invention date would remove US 4,159,524 as §102(a)/(e) art.
• "Potentially anticipates" is used in the strict single‑reference sense; where I judged a reference to reach only individual claim elements, I said so rather than overstating the §102 case.

I'll research the cited prior-art references before building the § 103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. 4,270,177 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analysis date: April 26, 2026. Ground truth = the "Patent Citations (14)" listed on the Google Patents record plus the specification and claims provided. Building on — not repeating — the prior summary's claim breakdown.

---

1. Threshold: what is actually available as § 103 art

A § 103 attack may only combine references that each qualify as prior art under § 102 (pre-1979-06-20 here). That gives us exactly the 14 examiner-cited references. The 21 "Cited By" references cannot be used as art against this patent — every one post-dates 1979-06-20 (earliest is US 4,354,245, priority 1979-08-10). Their only permissible role is corroborative evidence of what the field's routine practice became, which is weak against a 1979 priority and I flag it as such.

Uncertainty flag (binding): I was unable to retrieve the full text of US 3,641,563, US 4,064,396, US 3,970,626, GB 1,410,816, GB 1,385,024, GB 1,423,421, GB 1,411,788, GB 1,503,797 and US 4,044,241 within this session's tool budget. Everything I say about those nine is grounded only in their titles/dates/assignees from the patent page and general knowledge of their subject-matter classes — not in verified claim language. Treat any combination resting on them as lower-confidence and requiring full-text confirmation before it is relied upon.

---

2. Claim 1 — element-by-element

Claim 1 is a three-element apparatus claim (per the prior summary's breakdown):

• (A) manipulatable digital signal generator, output "substantially linearly related to a manipulated variable"
• (B) memory storing a series of digital amplitude control values with "predetermined amplitude changing characteristics," addressed by (A)
• (C) digital multiplier multiplying the digital audio input by (B)'s output

Element (A): linear pot/knob → digital

The person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA — a 1979 audio/DSP design engineer with a bachelor's degree and a few years in PCM audio) knew as of 1979 that a linear potentiometer's output voltage is, by definition, linearly related to slider displacement, and that feeding it to an A/D converter yields a digital number linearly related to the manipulated variable. This is not merely known; it is the baseline circuit for reading any control into a digital system, and the patent's own specification describes it as conventional (it claims pot+ADC only as dependent claim 2). US 3,612,112 (divider/tap-point scaling into comparators) and US 3,970,626 (transducer → A/D) confirm the routine availability of "analog control voltage → digital word." No novelty or non-obviousness can rest here.

Element (B): addressed memory holding a nonlinear (dB-shaped) value table

This is the heart of the invention, and the art supplies it twice over:

• US 4,159,524 (Siemens) discloses a coefficient store KS — a memory — whose contents are read out by an address signal (from address register AR) and delivered as the digital coefficient for a multiplication. Siemens expressly states the coefficients "are present in a digital form and can be adjusted with great precision if a sufficient number of binary signals are present." That is literally the claim-1 architecture of "addressed memory → control value → multiplication," applied to coefficient-based signal processing.
• US 4,064,396 (Sangamo Weston) is a "dynamic linearization system" — the classic use of a memory as a lookup table that imposes an arbitrary predetermined transfer characteristic on a measured digital value (here, to undo sensor nonlinearity). A PHOSITA reads this as direct teaching of element (B): store the desired (arbitrary/nonlinear) characteristic in the table, address it with the digitized measurement.

Element (C): digital multiplier on the audio

• GB 1,490,531 (NTT) is squarely in the field: a digital attenuator for a PCM audio signal that multiplies/attenuates the PCM word by a controllable factor. This is the claimed multiplication function, on the claimed signal type.
• US 4,159,524 (Siemens) again teaches forming products of signals and digital coefficients and even flags a multiplying D/A converter as the "single" inexpensive multiplier — i.e., digital-coefficient multiplication was a solved, cost-driven art.

Result: Every element of claim 1 is disclosed, and the only arguable point of novelty is the combination of "linear/manipulable address source" + "dB-table memory" + "digital audio multiplier." Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and MPEP § 2143, that is a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a known, cost-driven result, which is the classic § 103 case.

---

3. The primary combination (claim 1)

GB 1,490,531 (NTT) in view of US 4,159,524 (Siemens), further in view of a linear pot/ADC address source (e.g., US 3,612,112 or US 3,970,626).

What each reference teaches:

• NTT '531: the field, the signal type (PCM digital audio), and the operation (digital attenuation = multiplication by a control value) — the "what" of the invention.
• Siemens '524: the mechanism — an addressable memory of digital coefficients whose contents are the multiplicands, plus the express recognition that keeping coefficients in digital memory gives precision at low cost.
• Ragen '112 / GE '626: the address source — a manipulable analog control voltage digitized by an A/D converter (including the scaled resistive divider/tap used to set a level).

Why a PHOSITA would combine them (motivation, stated on the face of the art):

1. Arising-from-the-identified-problem motivation. The '177 specification itself names the problem: a 16-bit A/D converter for control values "is generally very costly," and in a multichannel console "the number of the amplitude control apparatus increases, giving rise to extremely high cost." KSR permits the problem to be taken from the inventor's own framing and from the art. Siemens '524 is explicitly a cost-reduction disclosure ("the circuit arrangement of the invention has the advantage that it is inexpensive since a large number of products are formed … with the aid of a single multiplying digital-analog converter"). Two references motivated by cost reduction in digital coefficient multiplication would be combined by a PHOSITA precisely to reduce cost.
2. Replacing the expensive component with a cheap equivalent. The prior-art FIG. 1 arrangement (log-linear pot + 16-bit linear A/D, per the specification) uses the expensive, hard-to-manufacture, nonlinear-taper pot. A linear pot is cheaper, and A/D cost scales with resolution. Moving the log/dB characteristic out of the pot's mechanical taper and into a memory is exactly the kind of substitution of a mechanical precision element by a digital lookup — a predictable design choice, and the very thing US 4,064,396 shows was routine for nonlinear characteristics.
3. Reasonable expectation of success. None of the three elements is coupled to another in a way that defeats combination: address → table → multiplier is a standard signal chain; Siemens '524 already runs that chain end-to-end (address register → coefficient store → multiplier). No new result is required, only aggregation.

Award: Claim 1 is obvious over this combination (strong case). A slightly different but equally viable primary pairing is NTT '531 + Sangamo Weston '4064396 (memory lookup for nonlinear characteristic) + a pot/ADC source, which swaps in the "put the arbitrary characteristic in a table" teaching directly.

---

4. Dependents

Claim 2 — pot across DC source + A/D

Adds nothing to claim 1 but the conventional implementation; the specification concedes it. The Ragen '112 divider/tap-point input and GE '626 A/D-of-a-transducer are direct showings. Obvious; also, this element is the starting "prior art" baseline referenced in the patent's own FIG. 1 discussion.

Claims 3–6 — window-comparator "insensible range ±ΔX," D/A + level shift, sample-and-hold, timing/self-oscillation

This is a subcombination of an A/D converter with hysteresis/deadband, and the art teaches the pieces:

• US 3,612,112 (Ragen) discloses an A/D converter with a high-level comparator 31-2 and a low-level comparator 31-1 (i.e., two thresholds bracketing the input), a ramp/counter conversion, calibration by comparison to a reference, and a presettable comparator with an oscillator. Two thresholds around the input value = the claimed X+/X− window around the last converted level. A PHOSITA adding a deadband to a digitizing loop to make it immune to noise/supply drift and prevent chatter is textbook signal-conditioning, and the '177 specification does not allege a surprising result — only "stable A/D conversion … not affected by variation … noise," which is the expected result of hysteresis.
• US 3,641,563 (Litton, "Correction circuit for converters") is in the same A/D-converter-correction subspace and would be cited for error/drift correction of converters. (Low confidence — text not verified.)
• The specific ×1-LSB deadband (ΔX = quantization size) is an optimization of range — the specification itself says "the optimum value of ΔX may be determined depending on the required accuracy … and the extent of variation … due to noises," i.e., a result-effective-variable optimization, obvious under In re Boesch / In re Applied Materials.
• Claims 4 and 6 add a sample-and-hold and its ordering relative to conversion — routine data-acquisition practice (S/H ahead of an A/D is standard; the patent even notes the S/H and timing circuits "may be used which are normally contained in the A/D converter").
• Claim 5 is the level-shift-from-S/H-sensed variant (FIG. 4/7), a trivial rearrangement of the same blocks.

Award: Claims 3–6 obvious over the primary combination + Ragen '112 (and Litton '563 to the extent it corroborates converter correction). Confidence: reasonable on the comparator/deadband and S/H points; lower on the exact D/A-plus-level-shift loop topology until Litton '563 is read in full.

Claim 9 — control-word bit count < audio bit count

The only "extra" insight is that the address word can be shorter than the audio word. Two independent supports make this obvious:

• It follows arithmetically and by design choice from choosing a coarse control resolution (the spec's own 0.25-dB difference-limnen rationale, and the concession that "a 50-step attenuator has been used for analog audio signals" → 6-bit control).
• Siemens '524 expressly emphasizes that coefficient precision is set by "the number of binary signals present," i.e., the coefficient word length is a free, selectable design parameter — so selecting it shorter than the audio word is not inventive.
  Audiologists/engineers already knew the human loudness difference limen (~0.25–1 dB), making the coarser control word an expected choice. Obvious as a design choice / optimization of a result-effective variable, with no unexpected result.

Claims 7–8 — two memories with sine and cosine characteristics feeding two multipliers (digital pan-pot)

Two-step obviousness:

• Claim 7 (two memories, different characteristics, common address, two multipliers, common audio) is a straightforward duplication of the claim-1 chain for a second output channel, addressed in common — routine in multichannel/panning contexts, and the art already contains multi-channel, commonly-addressed coefficient processing (Siemens '524 sums over multiple coefficients).
• Claim 8 (sine/cosine stored values) is the classic lookup-table trigonometric function generator — a staple of the digital arithmetic art of the day (sine/cosine tables in ROM were standard). GB 1,410,816 (Western Electric "Digital devices") and GB 1,385,024 (EMI "Digital signal handling techniques") are the natural candidates for a digital-function-generation teaching, though I could not verify either's content — this is the weakest link in the chain and I flag it as unconfirmed.
• The prior art's own pan-pot context (two interlocking nonlinear pots with sine/cosine tapers, per the specification and FIG. 10's description) shows the sine/cosine relationship was known; replacing two nonlinear pots + two precision A/Ds with one linear pot + one A/D + two tables is the same cost-motivated substitution that carries claim 1.

Award: Claims 7–8 likely obvious over the primary combination + a ROM sine/cosine table generator; confidence moderate pending verification of the function-generation reference.

---

5. Secondary considerations

• No objective evidence of non-obviousness is presented. The specification asserts only an "economical … low-redundancy" advantage — i.e., cost. Cost is a recognized design incentive that supports obviousness rather than rebutting it, and here it is the very motivation recited in the prior art (Siemens).
• No nexus evidence (commercial success, licensing, copying) is in the record; the patent expired 1999-06-20 and the "Cited By" set is later art that cannot supply or rebut a nexus for a 1979 priority date.
• Long-felt-need/teaching-away: no teaching away appears — the art points toward digital table-based gain (Siemens, and NTT's digital attenuation of PCM audio). If anything, the field was moving in the same direction.

---

6. Conclusion and confidence

Bottom line: Claim 1 would have been obvious under § 103. A PHOSITA in June 1979, seeking a cheap, high-accuracy digital gain control for PCM audio, would have been motivated (by the explicit cost problem in the prior art) to combine (i) an addressable memory of digital coefficients (Siemens '524), (ii) a digitized manipulable linear control voltage as the address source (Ragen '112 / GE '626), and (iii) digital attenuation/multiplication of a PCM audio word (NTT GB 1,490,531) — yielding exactly the claimed apparatus with a reasonable expectation of success. Dependents 2, 4, 6 and 9 fall with claim 1; 3 and 5 add only converter deadband/S-H mechanics shown in the A/D art; 7–8 rest on common table-based sine/cosine generation and require one further verification step.

Caveats you should carry forward: (1) Nine of the fourteen cited references were not read in full in this session; any argument resting on US 3,641,563, US 4,064,396, US 3,970,626, US 4,044,241, or GB 1,410,816/1,385,024/1,423,421/1,411,788/1,503,797 must be confirmed against full text before being asserted. (2) The closest art (NTT GB 1,490,531's attenuation-by-pattern-shifting) attenuates by bit-shifting rather than by a ROM lookup, so the load-bearing teaching for element (B) is carried by Siemens '524 and Sangamo Weston '4064396, not by NTT — if a full-text check shows those two do not in fact disclose an addressed memory of control values, the element-(B) case weakens materially and the obviousness conclusion for claim 1 would drop to Moderate. This is the single most important item to verify.