US 7161561

I'll search for authoritative information on US 7161561, including USPTO records and any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me run more targeted searches on USPTO records and any litigation/PTAB activity for this specific patent.

Let me check for the litigation outcome and any 2026 appellate activity involving this patent.

US Patent 7,161,561 — Summary

Important note on scope of this report: I searched for USPTO records and Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket activity for the specific number 7161561. I found no CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or opinion involving this patent. All appellate/litigation activity I could confirm for this patent dates from roughly 2011–2014. I flag that as a genuine gap rather than asserting there is none.

Bibliographic data

The '561 patent is the continuation sibling of US 6,628,299 ("Display system," priority 1998-02-10); the Google Patents family listing shows both. The GB counterpart is GB 2344713 B.

Abstract

"In a display system capable of displaying images fed from a plurality of sensing devices on an indicator, horizontal and vertical synchronizing signals of the individual measuring devices are synchronized with one another and desired image signals are selected for on-screen presentation during each successive horizontal scanning period, whereby operator-selected multiple images are displayed."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

• Claim 1 — A shipboard display system: several measuring units (at least some producing signals of a different kind than others), several indicators at different points on the ship, each indicator selecting and displaying signals from the units, coupling means linking the units to each indicator, and selectors located inside each indicator for choosing which units' signals to show.
• Claim 6 — Same architecture, expressly "installed in a ship," plus the added feature that a parameter is transmitted to a desired one of the measuring devices from at least one of the indicators (i.e., remote control / range-setting back to the sensor).
• Claim 8 — Same as Claim 6 but without the ship-specific limitation (generic measuring devices, indicators at different points), still requiring parameter transmission from an indicator to a chosen measuring device.
• Claim 10 — A shipboard system with informational signal-producing units producing different information; indicators at different points; coupling means that delivers each unit's signals simultaneously to the different points; and selectors in each indicator that select independently of what the other indicators select (per-indicator independent choice, versus a single shared selection).
• Claim 14 — Combines the Claim 12/6-type features with the Claim 10 independence features: multiple measuring devices, multiple indicators at different points, parameter transmission back to a selected device, simultaneous signal delivery to all points, and independent per-indicator selection.

Dependent claims of note: Claims 11, 13, and 15 (depending from 10, 12, and 14 respectively) add the frequency-domain multiplexing feature — the coupling means converts each device's signals to different frequency signals carried on a common conducting medium, and each indicator's selector converts them back to reproduce the selected signals. (This corresponds to the RGB signal mixing circuit 40 / image selection block 50 of FIGS. 11–15.) Claims 2–5 and 7 depend on the parameter-transmission and selector-control concepts.

Litigation history found (no 2026 CAFC matter)

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-810 — Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. & Furuno U.S.A., Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc. and Skyforce Avionics Ltd. Patents-in-suit included the '561 patent (along with 6,084,565; 7,095,367; 7,089,094). Terminated by settlement; Commission determined not to review the ID (81 FR notice, March 2012). Source: govinfo.gov FR-2012-03-21.
• D. Or. 3:11-cv-01196 — Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. v. Honeywell International Inc. et al. (filed 2011-09-30); case dismissed after settlement covering both the district court and ITC matters.
• D. Or. 3:13-cv-01683 — Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Garmin Ltd. et al. (filed 2013-09-23; terminated 2014-05-28). The complaint asserted claims 1–10, 12, and 14 of the '561 patent against Garmin GPSMAP 7212/7215 products.
• D. Or. 3:13-cv-01684 (Navico Holding AS et al.), 3:13-cv-01687 (Raymarine), 3:14-cv-00996 (Raymarine, filed 2014-06-20) — related Furuno Oregon cases asserting the same family of patents.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-900 (instituted 2013-11-15) — named Garmin and others; the investigation was terminated as to Garmin and as to the '292 and '447 patents based on settlement (ALJ ID, June 2014; Commission declined review).

Uncertainty

• I could not verify any 2026 CAFC docket or opinion referencing patent 7161561. The searches returned unrelated 2026 Federal Circuit decisions (AudienceScience v. Google, Global Tubing v. Tenaris, Teva v. Lilly, etc.) and no '561 matter.
• The patent's fee-lapse/expiration in 2019 means any 2026 appellate activity is unlikely, but I cannot affirmatively rule it out from the sources available to me.
• The inventor name "Kenzo Kitayama" comes from the Google Patents record; the USPTO "Inventor" field and the source documents I retrieved are consistent with this, but I did not independently open the USPTO PatentCenter assignment record.
• The claim-language summary above reflects the claim text as published on Google Patents (which contains obvious typos, e.g., "a least some," "selection and displaying," "the plurality measuring devices"); I have interpreted the claims literally in their defective form and flagged that they contain such errors rather than silently correcting them.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7161561 using the specified sources.

Let me gather more details on the specific cases, including the earlier 2011 case and the ITC investigations.

Let me verify the outcomes of the 2013 Oregon district court cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,161,561

Important identification note: I have interpreted the ID literally as US 7,161,561 ("Display System," Furuno Electric Co., Ltd.; priority 1998‑02‑10; granted 2007‑01‑09; continuation of US 6,628,299). It is not US 7,161,561's neighbors (e.g., 7,161,604) and not the many "7161561" erroneous strings appearing in unrelated waveguide/antenna references. Note also that Google Patents records this patent as "Expired – Fee Related" — lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees, effective 2019‑01‑09, with an adjusted expiration of 2020‑03‑22.

The '561 patent has been asserted in two ITC investigations and four (possibly five) Oregon district court actions, all by Furuno as plaintiff, all now concluded by settlement. Below are the cases I could confirm.

---

1. ITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑810

• Complainants: Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. (Japan) and Furuno U.S.A., Inc. (Camas, WA)
• Respondents: Honeywell International Inc. (Morristown, NJ); Skyforce Avionics Ltd. (West Sussex, UK)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. International Trade Commission ("Certain Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related Software")
• Filed: Complaint filed September 30, 2011; instituted November 3, 2011
• Patents asserted (incl. '561): '565, '367, '094, and '561 (specifically claim 8 of the '561 patent was within the scope of investigation)
• Outcome/Status: Terminated March 13, 2012 on the basis of a settlement agreement. The ALJ's ID (Order No. 9) granting the joint motion to terminate was not reviewed. (USITC notice; 77 FR 16562)

2. Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. v. Honeywell International Inc. et al. — D. Or.

• Plaintiff: Furuno Electric Co., Ltd.
• Defendants: Honeywell International Inc.; Skyforce Avionics Ltd.
• Jurisdiction: [U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland)](/courts/district-of-oregon-portland), Judge John V. Acosta
• Case No.: 3:11‑cv‑01196
• Filed: September 30, 2011 (Complaint dated Sept. 30, 2011; Count IV asserted the '561 patent against Honeywell's vehicle display devices, e.g., Honeywell Primus Epic)
• Outcome/Status: Dismissed February 9, 2012 after the parties reached a settlement covering both the district court case and the related ITC matter. (Law360 case page; Docket; Complaint excerpt)

3. ITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑900

• Complainants: Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. and Furuno U.S.A., Inc.
• Respondents: Garmin Ltd.; Garmin International, Inc.; Garmin North America, Inc.; Garmin USA, Inc.; Navico Holding AS; Navico UK Limited; Navico Inc.; Raymarine, Inc.; Raymarine UK Ltd.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. International Trade Commission ("Certain Navigation Products, Including GPS Devices, Navigation and Display Systems, Radar Systems, Navigational Aids, Mapping Systems and Related Software")
• Filed: Complaint September 23, 2013; instituted November 15, 2013
• Patents asserted (incl. '561): '565, '292, '561 (claims 1–10, 12, 14), and '447
• Outcome/Status: Terminated September 22, 2014, in its entirety, based on settlements with each respondent — Navico (terminated April 2014), Garmin (terminated June 30, 2014), and Raymarine (terminated August–September 2014). (78 FR 68861/68862; 79 FR 57878, Sept. 26, 2014)

4. Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Garmin Ltd. et al. — D. Or.

• Plaintiffs: Furuno Electric Co., Ltd.; Furuno U.S.A., Inc.
• Defendants: Garmin Ltd.; Garmin International, Inc.; Garmin USA, Inc. (and affiliated Garmin entities)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland), Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman
• Case No.: 3:13‑cv‑01683
• Filed: September 23, 2013 (complaint asserted the '561 patent, e.g., against Garmin GPSMAP 7212 and GPSMAP 7215 products, claims 1–10, 12, 14)
• Outcome/Status: Terminated May 28, 2014 (associated with the ITC '900 settlement with Garmin). (Docket Alarm; Complaint PDF)

5. Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Navico Holding AS et al. — D. Or.

• Plaintiffs: Furuno Electric Co., Ltd.; Furuno U.S.A., Inc.
• Defendants: Navico Holding AS; Navico UK Limited; Navico, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
• Case No.: 3:13‑cv‑01684
• Filed: 2013 (companion to the ITC '900 action; '561 patent among the asserted patents)
• Outcome/Status: Concluded by settlement (Navico and Furuno settled the parallel ITC matter in April 2014). (Oregon IP docket listing)

6. Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Raymarine UK Limited et al. — D. Or.

• Plaintiffs: Furuno Electric Co., Ltd.; Furuno U.S.A., Inc.
• Defendants: Raymarine UK Limited; Raymarine, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
• Case No.: 3:13‑cv‑01687
• Filed: 2013 (companion to the ITC '900 action; '561 patent among the asserted patents)
• Outcome/Status: Concluded by settlement (Raymarine and Furuno settled the parallel ITC matter in August–September 2014). (Oregon IP docket listing)

---

Source of the case list

Google Patents' "litigation" panel for US 7,161,561 (sourced from Unified Patents' litigation data and Darts‑ip) lists exactly these assertions:

• Oregon District Court 3:13‑cv‑01683, 3:13‑cv‑01684, 3:11‑cv‑01196, 3:13‑cv‑01687
• International Trade Commission 337‑TA‑810 and 337‑TA‑900

I did not find any additional '561 cases beyond these (e.g., no CAFC appeal or parallel district-court action asserting the '561 patent that is not tied to the Furuno/Honeywell/Garmin/Navico/Raymarine family of disputes).

---

Caveats

• No merits adjudication of the '561 patent was reached in any of these matters — every proceeding ended by settlement (the ITC investigations) or dismissal following settlement (the district court cases). There is therefore no claim-construction ruling, validity holding, or infringement verdict on the '561 patent that I could identify.
• A case appearing as 3:13‑cv‑01682 in one Oregon docket listing involves Furuno and Garmin entities, but the listing is ambiguous and I could not confirm with high confidence that the '561 patent (as opposed to the sibling '565/'292/'447 patents) was asserted in that particular docket. Treat that one as unconfirmed.
• The reverse dispute — Honeywell International, Inc. v. Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. (ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑783 and D. Minn.) — involves Honeywell's own patents (e.g., '388, '653, '452, '070), not the '561 patent, and is excluded from this list.
• CPC classification for the '561 patent: G01S 7/6218 and G01S 7/06 (cathode‑ray tube / 2‑D coordinated display arrangements), consistent with its marine display subject matter.

If you want, I can pull the individual PACER docket sheets or the ITC evidentiary record for any of these case numbers to confirm precise termination orders and settlement dates.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" default with targeted searches before writing anything.

Let me run a few more targeted checks to make sure nothing is hiding underneath the "no AIA proceedings" default.

One more pass to rule out reexamination and confirm no near-miss confusion.

I've exhausted my search budget. Here is the report based on the canonical structured data plus the corroborating searches I completed.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US 7,161,561 ("Display system," Furuno Electric Co., Ltd.)

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: zero (0). Breakdown: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. The USPTO Open Data Portal record supplied in the "PTAB proceedings on file" block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving this patent, and my independent web searches surfaced nothing to contradict that.

Bottom line for a defendant: this patent was never tested at the PTAB — by anyone — in the twelve years it was enforceable. There is no FWD to quote, no cancellation to lean on, and no institution decision to attack. But the more consequential fact is that US 7,161,561 expired on 2019-01-09 for failure to pay maintenance fees (adjusted expiration date listed as 2020-03-22; status "Expired – Fee Related"). A PTAB invalidity posture is therefore largely academic — the operative defense to any demand letter is expiration plus the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year damages lookback, not an IPR. Anyone asserting this patent today is asserting an expired patent, and anyone funding an IPR on it would be buying a remedy that no longer produces an injunction and, for pre-expiration conduct, is duplicative of a district-court invalidity defense.

No proceeding entries — what I checked and what I ruled out

Because the required "for each proceeding" template has no entries to fill, the substantive work here is the negative finding and the near-miss audit.

Verified as NOT PTAB activity on this patent:

What the '561 patent's actual litigation trail looks like (all non-PTAB, all resolved without a validity ruling):

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-810 — instituted 2011-10-27 on the complaint of 2011-09-30; Furuno asserted only claim 8 of the '561 patent, alongside the '565, '367, and '094 patents. Terminated 2012-03 on settlement; Commission declined review. ITC Notice of Institution (337-TA-810)
• D. Or. 3:11-cv-01196 — Furuno Electric Co. v. Honeywell Int'l et al., filed 2011-09-30; dismissed after the settlement covering both the district court and ITC tracks.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-900 — instituted 2013-11-15; Furuno asserted claims 1–10, 12, and 14 of the '561 patent (plus the '565, '292, and '447 patents). ITC Notice of Institution (337-TA-900) Note: the 2014-04-14 Federal Register partial-termination notice granting termination as to "claims 1-3, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19" concerns the '565 patent, not the '561 patent — do not read that cancellation language onto the '561 patent.
• D. Or. 3:13-cv-01683 (Garmin), 3:13-cv-01684 (Navico), 3:13-cv-01687 (Raymarine), 3:14-cv-00996 (Raymarine) — consolidated family of 2013–2014 Oregon suits. The Garmin complaint asserted claims 1–10, 12, and 14 of the '561 patent against the GPSMAP 7212/7215. Terminated by settlement; the '561 patent was not among the patents resolved by the June 2014 ITC ID terminating the '292 and '447 patents as to Garmin.

Residual caveat (stated rather than papered over): I could not directly query PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) in this session, and ODP ingest can lag. My web searches corroborated the "no proceedings" default rather than merely repeating it, but they are not equivalent to a live E2E case-number query. A one-minute confirmation query on PTAB E2E for "7161561" would close that gap.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status — all 15 claims UNTESTED at the PTAB. There is no cancelation of any claim of US 7,161,561 to report, because no AIA tribunal ever reached the merits. Independent claims 1, 6, 8, 10, and 14 and their dependents (2–5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15) stand exactly as issued, and no Certificate of Correction, reexamination certificate, or disclaimer affecting them surfaced in my searches. In the district court and ITC, claims 1–10, 12, and 14 were asserted (2013 matters) and claim 8 was asserted (337-TA-810), but every one of those tracks ended in settlement or dismissal, so there is no judicial or administrative validity determination for or against any claim. That cuts both ways: no claim is dead, and no claim is judicially blessed. Treat all asserted claims as vulnerable to § 102/§ 103 attack on grounds never considered by the Office — the five examiner-cited references are US 4,590,569; US 5,179,385; US 5,751,344; WO 1997/004334; and the parent US 6,628,299.

Estoppel landscape — there is none, and that is the point. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binds anyone. No petitioner, no privy, no real party in interest is estopped from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground. Any prior-art combination is theoretically available in a district court. Two practical caveats: (a) the § 315(b) one-year IPR window runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement — for the 2011 and 2013 defendants that window closed years ago, and a newly-sued defendant's window opens only on service against it; and (b) on an expired patent, IPR is far less valuable because the FWD cannot restore an injunction and pre-expiration damages are the only exposure. The § 315(c) joinder and § 325(d) discretion routes are untested here too, since the Office has never seen these grounds.

Pattern signals. Furuno was a practicing, ITC-using operating company — not a troll — and it litigated this family offensively twice (2011, 2013), settling both campaigns rather than taking validity to judgment. Notably, Furuno never defended a single IPR on the '561 patent despite sustained multi-front assertion: that is a genuine gap in the defensive-aggregator record. No entity — Unified Patents, RPX, or otherwise — appears to have challenged it, which is unusual for a patent asserted against Garmin, Navico, Raymarine, and Honeywell in the ITC. The likeliest explanation is commercial rather than legal: the campaigns resolved quickly by settlement, and by the time the 2018–2026 IPR wave matured the patent had lapsed for fee nonpayment (2019-01-09). Do not read the absence of IPRs as evidence that the claims are strong; read it as evidence that nobody needed to file.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and have received a demand letter citing US 7,161,561, lead with expiration, not validity. The patent expired 2019-01-09 for failure to pay maintenance fees (37 C.F.R. § 1.362). The Google Patents legal-status banner also lists "Adjusted expiration 2020-03-22" and "Expired - Fee Related" — reconcile the two dates against the USPTO PatentCenter maintenance-fee record before quoting either in a letter, but both post-date any plausible live claim. Confirm the lapse in PatentCenter (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/), then pair it with the § 286 six-year bar, which caps recoverable damages to infringement occurring on or after roughly 2020-09-27 if suit were filed today.
2. There is no FWD to quote and no canceled claim to point at. Do not build a letter or a motion on the assumption that claims 1–5 or 1–10 have been canceled. They have not. If you need a merits attack, it has to be built from scratch on § 102/§ 103 grounds — and the fact that the 2013 Garmin/Navico/Raymarine litigation asserted claims 1–10, 12, and 14 and then settled means you will likely be re-plowing invalidity contentions that were prepared but never adjudicated. Confirm with local counsel whether any of that 2013–2014 invalidity work product is available under a joint-defense arrangement.
3. Close the verification gap. Run a case-number query on PTAB E2E for "7161561" and a party query for "Furuno Electric" to confirm zero AIA trials, and check PatentCenter's "Reexaminations" and "Post-Grant" tabs for any ex parte reexamination (which would not appear in the ODP AIA-trial feed). The ODP block is the canonical list and it says none; make the primary-source check so your file says you looked.
4. Avoid the four near-miss citations: 6,961,561 (Apple v. Uniloc, IPR2018-01092 — all challenged claims held unpatentable), 8,078,561 (Smart RF, IPR2025-00586/-00612 family), 7,161,506 (inter partes reexamination, Control Nos. 95/000,479 and 95/001,926), and the '565 patent's canceled claims 1-3, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 from 337-TA-900. Each has been mis-attributed to this patent in secondary sources; none of them belongs in a brief on the '561 patent.
5. If you are evaluating a defensive IPR anyway, note the timing mechanics: institution decision within § 314(b)'s six months of a complete petition, FWD within § 316(a)(11)'s one year of institution (extendable to 18 months for good cause). But be clear-eyed that on an expired patent the Board can still cancel claims while the practical benefit is limited to eliminating a pre-expiration damages theory that the § 286 lookback may already have gutted.

No PTAB activity exists on US 7,161,561. That absence is itself the signal: a patent asserted against four major marine/consumer-navigation competitors in two ITC campaigns never drew a single petition, and it lapsed for nonpayment before the AIA trial regime matured into its current form. PTAB E2E · PTAB decisions · CourtListener

I'll research the assignment record for US 7,161,561 before drafting. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me try to reach the assignment records directly and check the related family/entity details.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 7,161,561 B2 ("Display system")

Source-access note (important): I attempted to pull reel/frame-level records from the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) by patent number, plus cross-checks against Google Patents legal events and FreePatentsOnline. I was unable to retrieve any assignment reel/frame entry for this patent within my search budget. What I can ground is set out below, with the evidentiary basis for each statement flagged. I have not fabricated any reel/frame numbers.

---

Inventors

• The electronic Official Gazette entry for the parent patent (US 6,628,299) lists the inventor as "Kenzo Kitayama, Hyogo-ken (Japan)" and states the application was "Assigned to Furuno Electric Company, Limited, Nishinomiya (Japan)" (OG record, US 6,628,299). The '561 continuation carries the same sole inventor.
• Corroboration of the employer link: Kitayama appears as a co-inventor on JP H10221435 A ("Fish finder"), filed by Furuno Electric Co. jointly with Yanmar Diesel Engine Co. (PubChem patent record). This is consistent with Kitayama being a Furuno engineer, not an independent inventor — but this is inference from a parallel filing, not an ASSIGNMENT record.
• Unusual-pattern check: None observed. Sole inventor, single original assignee, no evidence of inventor departure or of a rights carve-out. I found no evidence that any inventor retained personal rights or departed Furuno within 12 months of the 1999-02-09 filing. (Absence of evidence, not affirmative confirmation.)

---

Original assignee

Furuno Electric Company, Limited (now styled Furuno Electric Co., Ltd.), Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan.

• Line of business: Marine electronics — the world's first commercial fish finder (1948), and today a manufacturer of marine radars, chart plotters, echo sounders/sonars, GPS/GNSS receivers, and integrated bridge display systems.
• Does it ship products embodying the claims? Yes. The claims are directed to a shipboard display system that lets each of several bridge/remote indicators select among a radar, a plotter, and an echo sounder. Furuno is precisely the vendor of those three product classes and of the multi-function display (MFD)/networked display systems that combine them. The specification's own commercial framing (FIG. 1 showing radar 1 + course plotter 2 + echo sounder 3) is drawn from Furuno's own product architecture.
• Current status: Operating company. Still trading and publicly listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange (Furuno Electric, TSE code 6814). Not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. (Listing detail is from general knowledge and should be re-verified against a current TSE filing if it matters to your analysis.)
• Ownership consistency: Google Patents lists both "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee" for US 7,161,561 as Furuno Electric Co Ltd — i.e., the current record and the original record are the same entity. That is the substantive takeaway of this report.

---

Assignment timeline

Plain statement: The USPTO Assignment Center returned no reel/frame-level assignment records that I could retrieve for patent 7,161,561, and the Google Patents "Legal Events" table for this patent contains only maintenance-fee and lapse events — no assignment ("AS"), security-interest, merger, or change-of-name entries. The only ownership events I can ground are (a) the original inventor→Furuno assignment reflected on the face of the patent and in the parent's OG entry, and (b) the continuation relationship to US 6,628,299. The post-issuance record is empty, which is itself the finding.

Interpretation. A completely empty post-issuance assignment record means the patent was never transferred off Furuno's books. There is no shell-LLC link, because there is no link at all after issuance. The apparent tension between the two expiry dates (statutory lapse effective 2019-01-09 vs. "adjusted expiration 2020-03-22" in the Google Patents header) is a metadata inconsistency in the source, not an ownership event.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7161561
    1998 : Kitayama files JP priority application
    1999 : US parent application filed
         : Inventor assigns rights to Furuno Electric
    2003 : Continuation application filed
         : Continuation of US 6628299
    2007 : US 7161561 issued to Furuno
    2011 : Furuno sues Honeywell
    2013 : Furuno sues Garmin and Navico
    2014 : Cases settled and dismissed
    2019 : Patent expires for fee nonpayment

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Furuno Electric — a marine-electronics manufacturer that ships radars, chart plotters, echo sounders and the multi-function bridge displays that read on the asserted claims — is the original and current owner of record, with no post-issuance assignment ever recorded (Google Patents legal events for US 7,161,561 contain only FPAY/FEPP/LAPS entries, 2010-02-08 through 2019-02-11). Furuno enforced the patent in its own name against direct competitors (Honeywell in D. Or. 3:11-cv-01196 and ITC 337-TA-810; Garmin, Navico and Raymarine in D. Or. 3:13-cv-01683/1684/1687 and ITC 337-TA-900), and every such case terminated by settlement/dismissal — the classic profile of a commercial competitor dispute, not monetization by a non-practicing entity. The patent has since expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (effective 2019-01-09), so there is no live assertion exposure and no NPE acquisition to track.

Caveat on confidence: this verdict rests on negative evidence (an empty assignment record) plus the inventor→Furuno assignment reflected in the electronic Official Gazette for the parent. Because I could not open the Assignment Center record view, I cannot supply reel/frame citations, and I flag that the intermediary/continuation of the parent ('299) assignment was likely recorded against application 09/247,815 rather than 10/625,078 — worth confirming directly.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — search patent 7161561 and the Google Patents legal-events view.

I'll research the specific prior-art citations for US 7,161,561, starting with the patent's own citation record and each cited reference.

I have strong detail on US 4,590,569. Now let me verify the remaining four citations in the '561 record.

I have detailed records on the first four. Let me confirm the WO 97/04334 publication and its US family member, plus the parent reference.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,161,561 ("Display system")

Identification (literal, not auto-corrected): The artifact analyzed is US 7,161,561 B2, application US 10/625,078, filed 2003-07-22, granted 2007-01-09, inventor Kenzo Kitayama, assignee Furuno Electric Co., Ltd., priority 1998-02-10, a continuation of application 09/247,815 (which issued as US 6,628,299 B2). This is the correct target number; it is not the near-miss IDs that appear elsewhere in secondary sources (e.g., 6,961,561, 8,078,561, 7,161,506).

Citation set used. The patent's own USPTO/Google Patents record carries exactly five references in the "Patent Citations (5)" table. Those five — not the 33 "Cited By," not the 24 "Family Cites Families," and not the Nidec/waveguide documents — are the prior art of record. They are:

---

Threshold legal point before the per-reference analysis

§ 102 requires a single reference that discloses every element. Every one of the fifteen claims of the '561 patent contains the same structural centerpiece: a plurality of indicators at different points (on a ship / at different points), with selectors located inside each indicator. Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 are the independents (I carry forward the correction in the earlier Obviousness section: claim 12 is also independent — it depends on no earlier claim — so the independents are 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14).

None of the five cited references discloses plural indicators at different points. That single missing element is fatal to § 102 anticipation of every claim. The four pre-1998 references each describe a single integrated display head that receives/combines multiple input sources (and, in Schnee's case, a single switched video feed distributed to slave receivers). No cited reference places an independent selector inside each of several indicators. The correct legal characterization of all five references is § 103 art, not § 102 art. Below, for each reference, I give the citation, dates, description, and the claim(s) it comes closest to anticipating — together with the precise element that defeats anticipation.

(The fifth reference, US 6,628,299, is the '561's own parent. It is not prior art at all under § 102 — see item 5.)

---

1. US 4,590,569 A — Navigation Sciences Inc.

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,590,569, "Navigation system including an integrated electronic chart display," filed 1983-10-14, issued 1986-05-20. Family: WO 85/01794 (published 1985-04-25), EP 0160072, CA 1241416, AU 556558. Google Patents; justia; PDF
• Status vs. critical dates: Issued 1986 — more than one year before both the 1998-02-10 priority date and the 1999-02-09 parent filing. § 102(b) art.
• Brief description: An onboard Loran computer computes vessel latitude/longitude and generates an electronic navigational chart on a color CRT together with a position graphic and alphanumeric steering data. Simultaneously, the onboard object-detection system (e.g., radar) generates a map of fixed/moving targets, and the two are integrally combined into a single composite map-type display. Claims 19–21 recite the combining means, including means for blocking/inhibiting the radar (map) land-contour signals "in favor of" the chart signals, color-keyed suppression (claim 20), and alphanumeric data displayed adjacent the composite (claim 21). Claim 25 expressly contemplates a position system (Loran/Decca/satellite) plus an object detector (radar or sonar).
• Closest claims it could be argued to anticipate: none completely. It comes closest to the "different-in-kind signals combined on one display" concept underlying claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 14, and it is a strong § 103 reference against those claims.
• Why anticipation fails: The reference discloses one display fed by a single combining means; it contains no "plurality of indicators located at different points" and no "selectors provided in each of the indicators." The FIG. 6 block diagram shows a single color display. Its "blocking/inhibiting in favor of" mechanism is the antecedent of the priority/overlay idea but is not the claimed per-indicator selector.

2. US 5,179,385 A — International Marine Industries, Inc.

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,179,385, "Visual navigation aid with point of interest feature," filed 1992-01-02 (US priority 816,756), issued 1993-01-12. Inventors O'Loughlin, Low, Titcomb. EP counterpart EP 0 550 399 A3 (priority 1992-01-02). Google Patents; PDF; EP 0550399 A3 PDF
• Status vs. critical dates: Issued 1993 — more than one year before the critical dates. § 102(b) art.
• Brief description: A navigation aid comprising a radar antenna, a position sensor (LORAN/GPS/SATNAV/DECCA), a compass, map/chart data, a point-of-interest selector, a display, and a controller. The controller "determines whether the display depicts a chart, a radar sweep or both simultaneously"; the preferred display controller (38) comprises a toggle switch, and may split the screen into windows, overlay chart and radar, or otherwise determine how the chart/radar are depicted. Notably, EP 0 550 399 A3's search report cites WO 85/01794 (Navigation Sciences = US 4,590,569) as X-art against its claims 1, 6, 10 — i.e., the same chart+radar-combining concept.
• Closest claims it could be argued to anticipate: none completely. Most pertinent to claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 14 (combining radar and chart — two different-in-kind sources — with controller-selected depiction modes).
• Why anticipation fails: Same single-display defect. Controller 38 is a single controller for a single display 26; the reference's own text says a second display "if more than one display is used" is a contemplated variant, not the disclosed embodiment. There is no plurality of indicators at different points and no per-indicator selector.

3. US 5,751,344 A — Schnee

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,751,344, "Navigation system for a marine vessel in low light conditions," filed 1995-07-05, issued 1998-05-12. Inventor Robert Alan Schnee. Google Patents; EveryPatent
• Status vs. critical dates: Issued 1998-05-12 — after the 1998-02-10 priority date, so not § 102(a)/(b) art on its face. But its U.S. filing date 1995-07-05 precedes the critical date, so it is available as § 102(e) art (patent granted on an application filed before applicant's invention). Confirm the § 102(e) date against the file wrapper before relying on it.
• Brief description: This is the most on-point of the five for the "indicators at different points" concept. A low-light and a conventional video camera are mounted in a rotatable housing; a video switch 32 selects one camera's signal in response to a camera select signal from selector switches 44 in the cabin. Key disclosures: the selected video is distributed around the vessel; "switches could be placed throughout the vessel as desired"; "additional joysticks and selector switches could be... located in other areas of the vessel, in the captain's cabin, for example"; the camera is remotely aimed by joystick 56 adjacent the monitor (a parameter transmitted from the display location back to the sensor); and the overlaid video is "RF modulated on to a predetermined channel for distribution to television receivers in other locations on the vessel," with the viewer able to "check and monitor navigation information without having to go to the vessel's bridge by tuning to a predetermined channel."
• Closest claims it could be argued to anticipate: none completely. It is uniquely relevant to the "plurality of indicators at different points" and parameter-transmission elements of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and — through its "RF modulated on to a predetermined channel" distribution — to the frequency-distribution concept in claims 11, 13, 15.
• Why anticipation fails (three independent defects):
  1. Same-kind sources. Schnee's sources are two cameras (low-light and daylight) of the same type, not "units... arranged to produce signals different in kind."
  2. Centralized selection. The selection decision is made by video switch 32 at the camera housing; the selector switches 44 merely generate a camera-select control signal for that one switch. There is no selector inside each indicator that independently selects source signals for that indicator. If multiple selector switches are installed, they all drive the same single video switch — the opposite of the "independently of signals selected at other ones of said indicators" feature of claims 10/12/14.
  3. Single active video path. Only one (switched) video signal is distributed at a time; multiple indicators "tune to a predetermined channel" to view the same selected signal — not each indicator independently selecting among a plurality of simultaneously available source signals.

4. WO 97/04334 A1 — Lowrance Electronics, Inc.

• Full citation: International Publication WO 97/04334 A1, "Integrated sonar and mapping system and associated method," PCT/US96/11845, filed 1996-07-18, published 1997-02-06. Applicant Lowrance Electronics, Inc. PDF
• Status vs. critical dates: Published 1997-02-06 — before the 1998-02-10 priority date, but within one year of it, so § 102(a) art (English-language printed publication), not § 102(b).
• Brief description: A single screen display presents sonar/echo data, cartographic map data, and navigational (GPS) data, so "an operator need only refer to the single screen display for both mapping and sonar information." The flowcharts expressly implement operator-selected display modes: full sonar; "split sonar and navigational screen" (half-width sonar left, navigational data right); "split zoomed sonar"; split mapping/sonar; and steering screens combining map + sonar. The same controller 16 drives the sonar transducer via a power amplifier and executes the sonar process at operator-selected zoom/range — i.e., a measuring device's operating parameter is controlled from the display head. Its own International Search Report cites WO 85/01794 (= US 4,590,569) as X-art.
• Closest claims it could be argued to anticipate: none completely. Most pertinent to claims 1, 3 (different-in-kind information — sonar, chart, GPS — selected and simultaneously displayed on one indicator) and to the parameter-transmission claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 (controller changes the sonar range/zoom).
• Why anticipation fails: It is a single integrated unit with one controller 16 and one screen display 20. It discloses no plurality of indicators at different points and no per-indicator selectors; its "split screen" is a division of one display, driven by one controller.

5. US 6,628,299 B2 — Furuno Electric Company, Limited (the '561's own parent)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,628,299 B2, "Display system," application 09/247,815 filed 1999-02-09, priority 1998-02-10 (JP 10-28756 / JP2875698), issued 2003-09-30, assignee Furuno Electric Company, Limited. Google Patents
• Status vs. critical dates: NOT prior art. This is the parent application of US 10/625,078. The '561 application is a continuation of it, with the same sole inventor (Kitayama) and the same assignee (Furuno).
• Why it cannot anticipate (or otherwise invalidate) under § 102 or § 103: Under pre-AIA § 102, a reference must be "by another." The parent is not by another — same inventive entity, same disclosure. For the same reason it is not § 103 art (obviousness requires prior art, and one's own parent/continuation is not prior art). Its citation against the '561 in the "Patent Citations" table is procedurally anomalous (likely a same-family/continuation cross-reference rather than a substantive § 102/§ 103 rejection). If the examiner relied on it substantively, the only correct doctrine is statutory or obviousness-type double patenting, which is a non-§ 102/§ 103 ground carrying no independent prior-art effect.
• Conclusion: Disregard US 6,628,299 as prior art. Use it only as a description-of-record cross-reference (and, if needed, for an ODP analysis).

---

Summary table — § 102 mapping (literal)

Bottom line: No cited reference anticipates any claim of US 7,161,561 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. All four pre-1998 references are single-display-head systems and lack the claims' "plurality of indicators at different points... selectors provided in each of the indicators" limitation; Schnee, the one reference with multi-location distribution, has same-kind sources and a single centralized switch; and the fifth reference is the patent's own parent and is not prior art at all. The five references are properly a § 103 set, with US 5,751,344 (locations away from the bridge + local selector/joystick controls) and WO 97/04334 (different-in-kind information on one screen + control back to the sensor) the two most probative.

---

Caveats

1. § 102(e) date for Schnee. US 5,751,344 issued after the '561 priority date; its availability depends on the pre-AIA § 102(e) filing date (1995-07-05). Verify in the file wrapper before relying on it as § 102 art. (The earlier Obviousness section treated it as § 103 art; either theory works, but the statutory basis differs.)
2. "Different in kind" is the second weak spot. Even if a reference had multiple displays, US 4,590,569/5,179,385/WO 97/04334 supply different-in-kind sources (chart/radar/sonar/GPS), while Schnee supplies same-kind sources. Only the former trio, however, lacks the multi-indicator element.
3. Claim text quality. The claim language as published contains defects ("a least some," "selection and displaying," "the plurality measuring devices"). I have interpreted it literally and have not silently repaired it; a court, however, may treat these as correctable scrivener's errors, which would not change the anticipation analysis above.
4. What I did not do. I did not obtain the original examiner's rejection text from the '561 or parent file wrapper, so I cannot state whether US 6,628,299 was cited substantively (see item 5) or merely as a cross-reference. If you need that determined, pull the PatentCenter "Image File Wrapper" for application 10/625,078. I also did not exhaustively verify column/line support for every element quoted; the quoted passages above are from the reference PDFs/records cited.

Sources: US7161561 Google Patents record · US 4,590,569 · US 5,179,385 · US 5,751,344 · WO 97/04334 · US 6,628,299

I'll verify the one reference the prior-art section flagged as unresolved (US 5,751,344 / Schnee), since the entire claim‑10/§103 analysis turns on it, plus two combinations I plan to build on.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,161,561 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

(Built on the Prior Art, PTAB, Litigation and Assignment sections above. Where this analysis updates an earlier conclusion, I flag it explicitly.)

---

0. Updates and corrections to the earlier sections

---

1. Legal framework and the level of ordinary skill

Governing law. The '561 claims priority to 1998‑02‑10 (JP 10‑28756) and its parent was filed 1999‑02‑09, so pre‑AIA § 103 applies (no AIA § 103 re-codification; no first-inventor-to-file). The controlling substantive test is Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): the inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention, without requiring an express teaching, suggestion or motivation in the references.

PHOSITA (proposed definition). A person with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent) and 3–5 years of experience in the design of marine electronic instrumentation and video display systems, familiar with CRT/LCD indication, NTSC/PAL‑style sync architecture, sensor control heads (radar, echo sounder, GPS/plotter), and vessel wiring practice. This is a mature, crowded, commercial field at the 1998 critical date — a fact that matters for the motivation analysis under KSR.

Critical dates. § 102(b)/§ 103(b) art must predate 1998‑02‑09; § 102(e) art is that disclosed in a U.S. application filed before the invention date (here ≈1998‑02‑10).

---

2. The threshold observation that drives the whole analysis

The independent claims do not recite the invention the specification spends 20 figures describing.

Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 contain none of the following, all of which are the acknowledged point of novelty in the written description and drawing set:

• the synchronizing circuit 10 that slaves the plotter's and sounder's V‑sync to the radar's (FIGS. 3–4);
• image selection during each successive horizontal scanning period to produce split screens (FIGS. 5, 7, 9);
• the image-priority signals P1/P2 for foreground/overlay control (FIG. 8, modes ④/⑤);
• the RGB signal mixing circuit 40 / image selection block 50 frequency-domain architecture (FIGS. 11–15).

What survives into the independent claims is a thin architectural skeleton: plural dissimilar measuring units → coupling means → plural indicators at different points → a selector inside each indicator. That skeleton is exactly the kind of "arrangement of old elements" that § 103 was designed to reach. The narrow claims are 11/13/15 (frequency multiplexing) and, to a lesser extent, the parameter-return claims (2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14). Everything else is broad.

---

3. Element decomposition of the independent claims

Per-indicator independence is the sole differentiator of claim 10; per-indicator independence plus simultaneous delivery differentiates claims 12 and 14 from claims 6/8. This symmetry tells you which references do the work.

---

4. The combination set (grounded in the Prior Art section)

Primary references (of record against the '561): US 4,590,569 (Navigation Sciences — radar + electronic chart composite display, with signal blocking/inhibiting to give one source priority); US 5,179,385 (O'Loughlin — controller decides chart/radar/both, contemplates plural displays/windows); US 5,751,344 (Schnee — the keystone); WO 97/04334 (Lowrance — sonar + cartography + optional positioning receiver on one screen).

Secondary references (family-cited): US 4,879,697 (Lowrance split-screen sonar, three chart maps combined into one display image memory map with "synchronized display image"); FR 2,614,994 (Thomson‑CSF, plural radar images in a single mosaic); US 3,835,253 (RCA, plural video signals/time-delay compensation); US 4,954,829 (Hughes, data link distribution); DE 296 08 957 U1 (Dallmeier, multi-camera video surveillance w/ remote monitoring); US 5,603,323 and US 5,715,823 (networked ultrasound with remote image access at plural locations); US 5,374,932 / US 5,519,618 (MIT, plural sensors at plural operator positions); JPH 08‑23583 (Furuno's own track/detection display).

Excluded: US 6,628,299 B2 (same family, same inventor, same priority — not prior art, as correctly noted in the Prior Art section).

---

5. Combination I — Claim 1 (and the architecture limbs of claims 6, 8, 10, 12, 14)

Proposed combination: US 4,590,569 + WO 97/04334 + US 5,751,344 + US 5,179,385.

Why a PHOSITA would have combined these — the motivation, stated with the KSR rationales:

1. Express problem statement in the art (Rationale G — TSM). WO 97/04334 does not merely disclose a combined display; it advocates one, explaining that the operator "need refer only to a single screen display," and its background describes chart units and sonar units as separate prior instruments. This is a direct, in-art teaching to consolidate multiple marine measuring instruments onto a common display and away from the one‑instrument‑one‑indicator arrangement shown in the '561's own FIG. 1. (WO1997004334A1)
2. Applicant's own admission of the problem. The '561 specification's Background states that dedicated indicators per instrument mean "a number of expensive indicators are required," "[i]t is difficult to provide space," and it is "difficult for a viewer to give his or her consistent attention to the individual pictures." An applicant's characterization of the prior art's deficiencies is usable as evidence of the art-recognized problem and hence of motivation, independently of whether the specification itself is prior art.
3. Rationale C — known technique improving a similar device in the same way. US 5,179,385 already puts source selection (chart / radar / both) in the display controller. Replicating a display-resident selection function at a second display location is the same technique applied to the same class of device, with a predictable result.
4. Rationale F — design incentives / market forces. Marine electronics in 1996–1998 was converging on networked, multi‑station bridges (Schnee's own stated rationale: personnel in a cabin "can monitor without going to the bridge"). Duplicating a helm instrument at a second station is driven by cost, space, safety and redundancy — the identical justifications the '561 recites.
5. Rationale A — predictable combination. Each element performs exactly its known function: video switching selects a source; coax/RF distribution carries it; adding a second monitor and a second switch yields a second selectable station. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 ("a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions").

Deficiencies to be candid about. (a) Schnee's "selectors in each of the indicators" mapping depends on reading an indicator's selector as a switch located at/with the display rather than a switching element within the display housing — a claim-construction question the '561's own FIG. 5 (external control line CTL to a remote image selection circuit 20 in the first embodiment!) actually undercuts, since the '561 itself contemplates selection logic partly outside the indicator. That is a strong point for an accused infringer. (b) The combination is four references deep. Claim 1 is nonetheless the most exposed independent claim because it demands nothing beyond the skeleton.

Confidence: moderate-to-high on claim 1; moderate on claims 6/8/12/14 to the extent they add only parameter transmission (see Combination II).

---

6. Combination II — the parameter-return limitation (claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14)

This is the weak link in the obviousness case and it must be stated plainly: no reference of record discloses transmitting a parameter to a selected one of a plurality of measuring devices from an indicator.

Proposed combination: US 4,879,697 (Lowrance) + WO 97/04334 + US 4,590,569 (+ Combination I's architecture).

What US 4,879,697 supplies. Operator input at keyboard 10 → microprocessor 12 → control of transmitters 14/16/18 and their switching control switches. The sounder's transmitters and transducers are, by physical necessity, remote from the display head (transducer mounted on the hull/transom; display at the helm). Operator-initiated control values therefore must traverse the cable between the control head and the sensor electronics. (US4879697A)

Motivation. (i) Rationale D (KSR) — applying a known technique (control-head keypad drives the sensor's transmit/range settings) to a known device (a multi-source marine display) that is ready for improvement: as soon as the sounder's control head is moved away from the transducer and combined with a radar/chart display, transmittal of range and gain parameters back down the coupling line is not merely predictable, it is unavoidable — a sounder cannot be operated without setting range. (ii) The '561's own FIG. 16 / FIG. 17 example (key 116 + key 122 change the echo-sounder range from 0–100 m to 0–200 m) is the description of an ordinary control head, not of an inventive architecture. (iii) Rationale B — substitution of one known control path for another.

The honest gap. None of the five references of record shows addressing a parameter to a selected one of plural devices. The claim language is nevertheless very broad — "a parameter" (any parameter), "a desired one" of the devices (the one being displayed), "at least one of the indicators." A single control value sent to the instrument whose image is on screen reads on it. To complete the prima facie case a challenger should add art outside the citation list: pre‑1998 marine instrument network/control-head art (e.g., NMEA 0183‑era remote parameter setting, multi‑station autopilot/radar control heads, or remote-tuning/remote-range systems for echo sounders), or rely on the "predictable use" rationale above and marshal expert testimony on vessel wiring practice.

Confidence: moderate for claims 2/4/6/8; low-to-moderate for claims 3 and 12 (which layer on specific instrument sets and the independence+simultaneous elements). Note also that claim 3's "at least a radar and/or a plotter and/or an echo sounder" is disjunctive on its face — satisfaction by any one of the three, which collapses much of its narrowing force.

---

7. Combination III — Claim 10's independent per-indicator selection

Confirmed by full-text verification: Schnee does not anticipate. The video switch 32 and camera select circuit 36 sit at the camera housing; selector switches 44 only signal that circuit; and the "television receivers in other locations" are passive — they display whatever the single, centralized selection produced. Schnee therefore fails claim 10's "independently of signals selected at other ones of said indicators."

Proposed combination: US 5,751,344 (simultaneous multi-location distribution) + US 5,179,385 (display-resident source selection) + US 5,374,932 / US 5,519,618 (plural operator positions, plural sensor sources) or US 5,603,323 / US 5,715,823 (remote image access at plural locations).

Motivation. (i) A design-incentive/market-forces rationale (Rationale F): once each location has its own monitor (Schnee), leaving selection centralized means the cabin station overrides the helm — an obviously undesirable result. Giving each station its own control is the predictable fix, and it is the same fix O'Loughlin already applied at the display (chart/radar/both). (ii) Rationale C — using a known technique (display-local source selection) to improve a similar device (a second display station) in the same way, with a predictable result. (iii) Rationale A — nothing in the combination produces an unexpected result; the claim recites ordinary independent switching at each station. (iv) Crowding/industry-practice evidence: Lowrance (WO 97/04334, US 4,879,697), O'Loughlin/International Marine Industries, Furuno itself (JPH 08‑23583), and — as the 2013 litigation shows — Garmin, Navico and Raymarine all shipped multi‑station, multi‑source marine displays in this era. Simultaneous convergence of independent competitors on the same architecture is KSR‑favored evidence of obviousness.

Estoppel/patentability note. Because the § 315(e)(2) estoppel landscape is empty (see PTAB section), a challenger is free to run this combination; and because claim 10's only novel element is the independence limitation, the record need not supply a reference showing that element verbatim — only a reason to provide it.

Confidence: moderate.

---

8. Combination IV — Claims 11, 13, 15 (frequency multiplexing on a common conductor)

Claim 11 (from claim 10): coupling means converts each unit's signals "respectively to different frequency signals" and transmits them "on a common signal conducting medium"; the selectors in each indicator "convert said different frequency signals to reproduce said signals selected."

Proposed combination: US 5,751,344 (Schnee) + US 3,835,253 (RCA) + US 4,954,829 (Hughes) + DE 296 08 957 U1 (Dallmeier) + the background knowledge of television/CATV practice.

Why Schnee now carries real weight here. Schnee's disclosure is: "The overlayed video signal is RF modulated on to a predetermined channel for distribution to television receivers in other locations on the vessel." That is, in substance, three of the four things claim 11 requires — (1) conversion of the image signal to a frequency signal, (2) transmission on the vessel's common conducting medium (the coax distribution system), and (3) receiver-side tuned recovery of the image to reproduce it. What Schnee lacks is plural different frequencies for plural sources on that medium.

Motivation to supply the missing plural-channel feature (strong). (i) Rationale D/E — applying a known technique (frequency-division multiplexing of several video channels onto one coaxial conductor, the founding technique of the entire cable-television industry by the 1960s–1980s) to a known device (a vessel video distribution on coax) ready for improvement. (ii) The cable-count problem is stated in the art and in the '561 itself: the specification expressly observes that in the direct-wiring second embodiment "at least nine coaxial cables would be required." Reducing cable count in a vessel is a documented, ordinary engineering objective (cost, weight, routing, disturbance to existing wiring, EMI). (iii) US 3,835,253 (RCA) shows plural television/video signals on a common communication link with timing compensation; US 4,954,829 (Hughes) shows multiple-station data-link distribution; DE 296 08 957 U1 shows multi-camera video to remote monitors. (iv) Rationale B — the modulation/demodulation and upper-sideband bandpass filtering of the '561's FIG. 12 (multiply by carrier f7, pass the upper sideband through a filter centred at f4) is textbook AM with a bandpass filter, i.e. the substitution of one well-known circuit for another.

Counterargument the patent owner will press: Schnee has a single channel, so "different frequency signals" per device is not disclosed. That is an argument about anticipation under § 102, not about obviousness under § 103 — and it is precisely why these claims survive the cited art as anticipation but not as obviousness. Expect a challenger to cite additional CATV/MATV and multi‑channel coax distribution art (pre-1998) to close it.

Confidence: moderate-high that claims 11/13/15 are invalid over art outside the five‑reference record, moderate on the record as it stands.

---

9. Claim-by-claim obviousness summary

---

10. Teaching away, and the patent owner's best counterarguments

• No teaching away found. No reference criticizes the combination, disparages multiple indicators, or teaches that a vessel must have exactly one display. WO 97/04334's preference for one screen (as opposed to one instrument per screen) does not disparage multiple stations — and Schnee, in the same field and same era, expressly embraces distributing the image to receivers elsewhere on the vessel. A teaching-away argument would fail.
• "Different in kind" is not a narrowing force. Radar vs. chart/plotter vs. echo sounder are unarguably different in kind, and the cited art discloses exactly those combinations (US 4,590,569; WO 97/04334).
• The specification is not prior art against itself, but the claims are broader than the disclosure. The patent owner cannot import the synchronizing circuit 10, the P1/P2 priority scheme, or the scan-period switching into the independent claims to defeat these combinations without running afoul of written-description/claim-construction limits.
• Secondary considerations are absent from the record. No merits adjudication, no FWD, no verdict, no injunction. Any objective-indicia argument Furuno might raise (commercial success of multi‑function bridge displays) faces a nexus problem: the claims cover only the architecture, while the products' appeal rests on chart detail, user interface and price. Worse for the patent owner, the crowding of the field by Garmin, Navico/Raymarine and Lowrance with the same architecture is affirmative evidence of obviousness, not of nonobviousness.
• Practical posture: the patent expired 2019‑01‑09 for fee nonpayment (adjusted expiration listed 2020‑03‑22), so this § 103 analysis is most likely to be used for a § 286 damages lookback, a licensing negotiation, or a settlement valuation — not to obtain an injunction.

---

11. Caveats and next steps

1. Verified this pass: Schnee's full selection architecture and its RF‑modulation/multi‑location distribution disclosure; Lowrance US 4,879,697's map‑combining and keyboard→transmitter control path. Everything else is characterized from the family-citation table per the Prior Art section and remains unverified.
2. Highest-value follow-ups: (i) obtain full text of US 4,590,569, US 5,179,385 and WO 97/04334 to convert the mapping tables above into verbatim pin cites (column/line); (ii) locate pre-1998 remote-parameter-control art for the claims 2/4/6/8/12/14 limitation — that is the only place where the prima facie case is incomplete; (iii) obtain pre-1998 multi-channel coaxial video distribution / CATV art to close claims 11/13/15; (iv) pull the US 10/625,078 file wrapper to confirm the true list of record, since the Google "Family Cites Families" list aggregates the parent's and GB counterpart's citations.
3. Do not cite US 6,628,299 as prior art in any § 103 chart — same family, same inventor, same priority; it cannot be "by another" and its specification is the '561's own.

Bottom line. Nothing of record anticipates the independent claims, but under KSR the '561's independent claims are an obviousness-vulnerable architectural skeleton. The strongest case runs: US 5,751,344 (Schnee) as the keystone — supplying multi-station distribution, at-display selection controls, and RF-modulated common-medium video recovery — combined with WO 97/04334's express teaching to consolidate plural marine instruments onto a shared display, US 5,179,385's display-resident source selection, and US 4,879,697's control-head-to-sensor parameter path. The two soft spots are the parameter-return limitation (claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14) and the plural-different-frequencies limitation (claims 11, 13, 15); both are closeable with modest additional art outside the citation record, and neither is supported by any adjudicated validity determination — because there is none.