US 9470560

I'll search for the specific patent number and check for any litigation or docket activity.

Let me check specifically for litigation/docket activity and USPTO records.

US Patent 9,470,560 — Verification Summary

Sources searched: Google Patents record for US9470560 (full text fetched 2026‑09‑24), general web searches for the patent number, ETI product literature citing the patent, and searches combining the patent number with "CAFC," "2026 docket," "litigation," and "infringement."

Bibliographic Data

Abstract (verbatim)

"A display assembly comprising a first display member and a second display member, wherein the first display member is at least partially superimposed upon, fixed to and rotated with respect to the second display member and the first and second display members can be selectively actuated."

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Display assembly (the sole independent apparatus claim).
This is a stacked, transparent LCD sandwich that can show a reading in four different view orientations without physically rotating the instrument. Specifically, it requires:

1. Four display members (first, second, third, fourth) — not two.
2. Each member uses segment displays (e.g., 7-segment) that have a fixed viewing orientation (i.e., a segment display can only read correctly from one direction).
3. The second, third and fourth members are at least partially superimposed on, fixed to, and rotated relative to the first member, forming a sandwich of planar display members.
4. The rotations are chosen so the four members have different fixed viewing orientations angularly offset from one another relative to a single fixed point (read: 0°, 90°, 180°, 270° about a common axis).
5. The four members are selectively actuated exclusively — i.e., only one display member is driven/illuminated at a time, so the user never sees two conflicting readings superimposed.

In essence: a four-layer stack where each layer is one 90° step apart, and electronics light up only the layer whose orientation matches how the user is holding the device.

Claim 22 — Thermometer.
A thermometer comprising the display assembly of claim 1, i.e., the apparatus claim 1 incorporated into a temperature-measuring instrument. All remaining claims depend from claim 1 or 22 (e.g., claim 4 "rotated by 90°"; claim 9 "three seven-segment displays and two °C displays"; claim 11 polarizer/transflective back panel; claim 14 actuator; claim 16–17 orientation sensor such as an accelerometer; claim 18 contacts on neighboring sides; claim 21 thermocouple/thermistor/temperature sensor; claim 23 housing with a viewing window; claim 24 identical first and second display members).

Notable Observation on Claim Scope

The abstract and the "Summary of the Invention" describe only two display members, while granted claim 1 requires four display members with four distinct view orientations. The specification's principal embodiments (FIGS. 1–7) are two-layer, 90°-rotated assemblies that yield four orientations by combining each layer's two 180°-complementary readouts (two °C/°F unit indicators, one inverted relative to the other). The four-member configuration appears in the specification only as an alternative "another exemplary embodiment." This means the claim language and the commercialized product's description ("360° rotational display … rotates in 90° increments") are aligned at the level of four possible viewing orientations, but the claim achieves it with four separate rotating layers rather than two layers with dual unit displays. Worth flagging if you are assessing claim–product mapping or validity.

Cited Prior Art (as listed on the face of the patent)

US 20030058231 A1 (Kitaura); US 6,669,362 B1 (Radiant Innovation — "Two-way display infrared thermometer"); US 2004/0125854 A1 (Liu — "Electronic thermometer with a directionally adjustable LCD display"); GB 2405517 A (Sharp — "Multiple view display"); US 2007/0091011 A1 (Uni-Pixel — "Z-Axis Redundant Display / Multilayer Display"); US 8,149,182 B2 (LG Display — "Dual-view display device"); DE 202008002127 U1 (Kundo Systemtechnik); US 2010/0194683 A1 (Piper); US 2012/0002140 A1 (Tescom); US 2012/0150482 A1 (Yildizyan); US 2012/0194763 A1 (Pusan National University). Non-patent citations: DE 202008002127 English translation and the GB 1214379.8 §17 search report (search date Dec. 17, 2012).

Litigation / Docket Search — Explicit Uncertainty

I found no evidence of any litigation, PTAB proceeding, or Federal Circuit appeal involving US 9,470,560, and in particular no 2026 CAFC docket activity. Searches combining "9470560" / "9,470,560" with CAFC, 2026 docket, lawsuit, and infringement returned only ETI's own commercial product literature (TempTest 1/TempTest Blue, Thermapen, RayTemp 2 Plus), which state: "protected by UK Patent No. GB 2504936 and USA Patent No. US 9470560."

Caveats on that negative finding: I searched the open web and Google Patents, not PACER or the Federal Circuit's own docket system directly. The CAFC publishes its docket through its own CM/ECF and the National Archives' PACER, neither of which is reliably indexed by general web search, and there is no publicly indexed "CAFC 2026 docket for 9,470,560" that I could retrieve. A definitive litigation check would require a direct PACER/CM-ECF or commercial litigation-database query (e.g., Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, Westlaw Litigation Analytics). I therefore report the absence of findings rather than asserting affirmatively that no such proceedings exist.

Also unverifiable from my searches: whether the patent has been assigned away from Electronic Temperature Instruments Limited, whether any reissue/re-examination certificate exists, and the current small-entity status beyond the last recorded fee payment (8th year, 2024).

Commercial Context (corroborating, from search results)

The patent is the US coverage for ETI's automatic 360° rotating thermometer display, implemented in the TempTest 1, TempTest 2, TempTest Blue and cited in RayTemp 2 Plus and Thermapen literature. The marketed feature — "rotates in 90° increments … left hand, right hand, vertical or horizontal … can be locked" — is consistent with the four-orientation claim concept, though as noted the claim's four-liter architecture is the legally operative scope.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9470560.

Let me search patent litigation databases specifically.

Let me check a few more patent litigation-specific sources.

Litigation search results for U.S. Patent No. 9,470,560

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,470,560.

What I searched

I ran searches aimed at patent-litigation sources (including the Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portal, Justia federal docket materials, CourtListener/RECAP-hosted filings, and general web queries combining the number with terms like "litigation," "lawsuit," "infringement complaint," and the patent owner's name). I also searched for the owner, Electronic Temperature Instruments Ltd (ETI), together with the asserted-product names.

What the searches actually returned

Every hit referencing 9,470,560 / US9470560 was a product/patent-marking notice, not a court filing. Specifically:

• ThermoWorks product manuals (TempTest 1/2, RayTemp 2 Plus) state: "US Patent No US 9470560" (thermoworks.com PDFs).
• ETI / Thermometer.co.uk / Thermapen product pages and manuals state the 360° rotating display is "protected by UK Patent No. GB 2504936 and USA Patent No. US 9470560" (e.g., thermometer.co.uk, jbacalibration.com, eatalfresco.co.uk).
• The patent's own Google Patents page shows only prosecution/assignment activity (granted 2016-10-18; assignments to Electronic Temperature Instruments Limited; maintenance fees paid 2020 and 2024), and lists no litigation events.

Important disambiguation (numbers I did NOT treat as this patent)

Several results involved different patents whose numbers superficially resemble or contain "947," and I excluded them per the instruction not to auto-correct or conflate identifiers:

• U.S. Patent No. 8,818,947 ("the '947 Patent") — Celonis SE v. SAP SE, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-02519-VC (patent-eligibility motion). This is a software/data patent, not 9,470,560.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,845,947 ("the '947 patent") — AudioEye, Inc. v. AccessiBe Ltd. (W.D. Tex., transferred to W.D.N.Y.). Not 9,470,560.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,721,057 — Synopsys v. Real Intent (N.D. Cal. 5:20-cv-02819). Not this patent.
• Various unrelated cases (Medtronic/Axonics, Sonos/D&M, Linton Crystal, etc.).

Answer to your specific request

Caveats / confidence

• Confidence is moderate-to-high that no litigation exists, but not absolute. The public web results available to me did not surface any district court, ITC, PTAB (IPR/PGR), or CAFC proceeding naming 9,470,560. I could not directly query paywalled/authenticated docket systems (PACER, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents portal login) in this session, so there is a residual possibility of a filing that is not well-indexed by general web search.
• To be fully certain, you would want to confirm directly against: PACER (all district courts + Federal Circuit), the USPTO PTAB trial dockets, and the ITC EDIS Section 337 docket, using the exact string "9,470,560." I was unable to complete those authenticated lookups here.

I will not fabricate plaintiff/defendant/case-number details for a proceeding I could not verify. If you can supply a docket-system export or allow authenticated access, I can verify and detail any case precisely.

Note on the sources: The only substantive hits were commercial product pages (thermoworks.com, thermometer.co.uk, jbacalibration.com, eatalfresco.co.uk, futron.com.sg) and the Google Patents record (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9470560/en). None described litigation.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 9,470,560 B2

Patent: Display assembly · Assignee: Electronic Temperature Instruments Ltd (UK) · Inventors: Paul David Wyatt, David Parsons · Priority: 2012-08-13 (GB 1214379.8) · Filed: 2012-11-05 · Granted: 2016-10-18 · Status: Active, adjusted expiration 2033-08-26 · Claims: 1–24

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for 9,470,560, and repeated targeted web searches (patent number, assignee, petitioner-side combos, PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm / CourtListener) surfaced nothing to contradict that — no active, no instituted, no denied, no settled, and no claims-invalidated proceedings exist. Defensively, this means the patent is completely un-adjudicated at the PTAB: no claim of 9,470,560 has ever been canceled, and no estoppel or FWD record exists to lean on. A defendant must build its invalidity case from scratch, not from someone else's IPR work product.

Caveat on the search: the negative result is based on the structured block you supplied plus my own searches. I found no proceeding numbers, so I have not invented any. If you need a belt-and-suspenders confirmation, pull the patent's Patent Trial and Appeal Board tab directly in PTAB E2E and PACER/Docket Alarm for the assignee entity.

No proceedings to itemize

Because the canonical list is empty, there is no proceeding number, petitioner, panel, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or appeal to report. Per your instruction, I flag only the following non-confirmations and near-misses so nothing is mistaken for a hit:

• Google Patents "Families Citing this family (45)" — this is the routine citation graph (almost entirely Manufacturing Resources International thermal-management patents), not PTAB activity. Those 45 entries have no bearing on the validity of 9,470,560.
• "Citations (11)" and "Non-Patent Citations (2)" — prosecution-era references cited by the examiner/third parties, not trial exhibits. Most relevant prior art of record: US 6,669,362 B1 (Radiant Innovation, "Two-way display infrared thermometer," 2003-12-30) and US 2004/0125854 A1 (Liu, "Electronic thermometer with a directionally adjustable LCD display"). If you do file, these are the natural starting points.
• No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) is identifiable anywhere in the record.
• No Federal Circuit appeal, no district court litigation, and no ITC action involving 9,470,560 surfaced in any search.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 24 claims are UNTESTED. None are canceled, none are confirmed by any tribunal, none have been narrowed by amendment. Claims 1–24 remain exactly as granted on 2016-10-18. The patent's family is small and entirely intact: U.S. 9,470,560 (active), GB 2504936 B (active), and DE 202013103605 U1 (a German utility model — note this is a Gebrauchsmuster, not a utility patent, and its German legal status is listed as expired/lapsed). Because there is no IPR history, there is also no statutory disclaimer, no certificate of correction narrowing claims, and no reissue to account for.

Estoppel landscape: nothing to inherit, nothing to fear. With zero petitioned IPRs, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a blank slate — no petitioner or privy is barred from any ground, and, symmetrically, you are not barred from any ground either. Every prior-art theory is on the table: § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, and (in litigation or a PGR-style attack) § 112 written-description/enablement and § 101. The 2012 priority date means pre-2012 printed publications, thermometers, and dual-/rotatable-display products are all fair game. One note: because the patent's priority is 2012-08-13 and it was filed 2012-11-05, it is a post-AIA (first-inventor-to-file) patent, so AIA §§ 102/103 apply — and only PGR (not CBM) would be available on § 101/§ 112 grounds, and only within 9 months of grant (long since lapsed, i.e. PGR is time-barred). Practically, IPR is the only AIA vehicle still available for a validity challenge at the Board, and only on §§ 102/103 grounds.

Pattern signals: none. No repeat petitioner, no patent-owner appeal history, no aggregator, no inter partes reexamination, no ex parte reexamination. The patent is a modest commercial asset marked on consumer thermometers — ThermoWorks' RayTemp 2 Plus, TempTest 1, and TempTest 2 operating instructions all recite "US Patent No US 9470560" — which tells you the owner enforces by marketing/licensing rather than by serial litigation. The absence of any IPR is meaningful: this is not a patent that has drawn repeated validity challenges, so it has never been stress-tested; its ~24 claims have survived only routine prosecution over a thin reference set.

Recommended next steps

• You have no FWD to cite and no canceled claims to point at. Do not represent to a court or a counterparty that any claim of 9,470,560 has been invalidated — that would be false. The defensive posture is "un-adjudicated patent," not "hardened" and not "gutted."
• If you are a defendant and want Board relief, file an IPR within the § 315(b) one-year window running from service of the first infringement complaint on you (or a privy/RPI). Only §§ 102/103 grounds are available at the Board; save § 101/§ 112 for the district court, since PGR is time-barred for this 2016 grant.
• Milestones to expect if you file: institution decision due within 6 months of the petition's filing date (§ 314(b)); Patent Owner Preliminary Response due ~3 months from the notice of accorded filing date; and a statutory 1-year trial clock from institution to the Final Written Decision (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable up to 6 months for good cause. There is no current trial schedule to track because no trial exists.
• Claim-construction angle to scout now: claim 1 (as granted) recites four display members "selectively actuated exclusively" and "different fixed viewing orientations … angularly offset from one another relative to a single fixed point," with the second/third/fourth "at least partially superimposed upon, fixed to and rotated a rotation with respect to the first." The specification's primary embodiments describe two display members; the four-member configuration appears only as an alternative "another exemplary embodiment." That § 112 written-description/enablement gap (plus the antecedent oddity in "rotated a rotation") is the kind of intrinsic-record weakness that a district court invalidity or a post-grant attack would exploit — but it is not an IPR ground, so weigh your forum choice accordingly.
• Preserve your own estoppel position: if you file an IPR and lose, § 315(e)(2) bars you and your privies in the later civil action from re-raising any ground you raised or reasonably could have raised. With no prior petitioner ahead of you, there is no one else's estoppel to piggyback on — the first IPR is entirely yours to own.

Sources for the tooling: confirm the null PTAB result and pull any future filings at USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and the ODP API; check for any parallel litigation docket via CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com). The patent's full text and family are at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9470560/en.

Confidence note: I am highly confident the structured ODP block is correct that no AIA proceedings are on file. My web searches corroborate this, but a web search cannot prove a negative with 100% certainty — if you are relying on this in a brief or a client memo, verify against PTAB E2E directly.

I'll verify the assignment record and ownership chain using the sources available to me.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 9,470,560 B2 ("Display assembly")

Sources consulted: the authoritative full patent text and Google Patents legal-events record for US 9,470,560 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9470560/en), Justia patent record (https://patents.justia.com/patent/9470560), and public product/company material for the original assignee. USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) could not be queried directly in this session — see the caveat under Assignment timeline.

Inventors

• Paul David Wyatt — listed on the US record as assignor; residence given as Sussex, England (Justia). No separate employer of record is stated on the face of the patent, but he assigned to Electronic Temperature Instruments Limited ("ETI") pre-filing and is Sussex-based, consistent with employment by ETI (Worthing, West Sussex).
• David Parsons — same: listed assignor, residence Sussex, England.

Both inventors appear as assignors on the single recorded assignment (reel 029241/0756) in favour of ETI. There is no evidence in the record of either inventor departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and no re-assignment of their interest to any third party. The inventors' assignment was executed 2012-10-23, i.e. before the US filing (2012-11-05) and roughly two months after the GB priority filing (GB 1214379.8, 2012-08-13) — the standard, benign "employees assign to their employer as a condition of filing" pattern. No fire-sale precursor signal.

(Caveat: I could not independently verify current employment status of either inventor; no source surfaced indicating a departure.)

Original assignee

Electronic Temperature Instruments Limited (ETI) — Worthing, West Sussex, United Kingdom. Named as both original assignee and current assignee on the US record.

• Primary line of business: manufacturer and distributor of thermometers and portable test/measurement instrumentation (catering, industrial, HVAC, refrigeration, legionella, environmental monitoring). Founded 1983 in Worthing by Peter Webb MBE DL; privately owned since inception; ~207 employees (2021 figure). Three Queen's Awards for International Trade (2012, 2014, 2017) and a Queen's Award for Enterprise for Innovation (2018). Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Electronic_Temperature_Instruments.
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — explicitly and repeatedly. ETI's TempTest 1 / TempTest 2 / TempTest Blue and Thermapen ONE and RayTemp 2 Plus product literature states the automatic 360° rotational display "is protected by UK Patent No. GB 2504936 and USA Patent No. US 9470560," and the products are sold with that feature as a headline selling point. Examples:
  • ETI's own shop: https://thermometer.co.uk/catering-thermometers/1095-temptest-1-smart-thermometer-360-rotating-display.html
  • ThermoWorks (US distributor) operating instructions PDF: "Display 0.4 inches (11 mm) LCD, rotates 360°. US Patent No US 9470560" — https://www.thermoworks.com/content/pdf/temptest_operating_instructions.pdf
  • JBA Calibration product page: https://www.jbacalibration.com/product/temptest-1-smart-thermometer-360-rotating-display/
    This is a product-practising patent, and the assignee markets it as such — the inverse of an NPE posture.
• Current status: Operating. Privately held, no bankruptcy, no acquisition, no dissolution surfaced. It is still paying to maintain this patent (see below) and still claims it in current marketing copy.

Assignment timeline

Headline finding: the USPTO record for US 9,470,560 contains exactly ONE recorded assignment — the original inventor-to-employer capture. There are no post-issuance transfers of any kind.

• 2012-10-23 (executed) / recorded 2012-11-05 — Reel 029241/0756
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (per Google Patents legal events: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Wyatt, Paul David; Parsons, David
  • Assignee: Electronic Temperature Instruments Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources available to me this session. The Google Patents legal-events rendering exposes the reel/frame (029241/0756), the conveyance type, the assignors, the assignee and the effective date, but not the correspondent/attorney field. I did not obtain the Assignment Center abstract-of-title page for reel 029241/0756, so I will not name a correspondent — doing so would be fabrication. Verification task: pull reel 029241/0756 at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html, search "9470560") and read the Correspondent field.
  • Context: Routine pre-filing internal capture — inventors assigning to their employer, recorded the same day the US application was filed (2012-11-05). Not an acquisition, fire-sale, securitization or transfer-to-asserter.

Subsequent legal events (not assignments):

• 2016-09-28 — Patent grant recorded (US 9,470,560 B2 granted 2016-10-18).
• 2020-02-18 — Maintenance fee paid, 4th year, small entity.
• 2024-04-09 — Maintenance fee paid, 8th year, small entity. Payment by the assignee itself is strong affirmative evidence that ETI still owns and values the patent.
• Legal status: Active; adjusted expiration 2033-08-26.

Family (same ownership, no transfer): GB 2504936 B (priority GB 1214379.8, 2012-08-13) and DE 202013103605 U1 (filed 2013-08-12) belong to the same family/ETI. Per Google Patents country status, the DE utility model is marked "Expired – Lifetime"; GB is "Active." These are foreign counterparts, not links in a US assignment chain.

Because there is exactly one recorded assignment and it runs from the inventors to the original operating company, the assignment-record section could stop here for a chain analysis — there is no chain beyond the first link.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9470560
    2012 : GB priority application filed
         : Assignment executed to ETI
         : US application filed and assignment recorded
    2016 : US 9470560 granted to ETI
    2020 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid
    2024 : Eighth year maintenance fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment) — as a rubric bucket, because the Assignment Center abstract of title for this patent contains only the original inventor-to-employer assignment.

Substantively, this is a clean, benign single-link chain, not an evidentiary gap: reel 029241/0756, executed 2012-10-23, recorded 2012-11-05, transferred all rights from inventors Wyatt and Parsons to Electronic Temperature Instruments Limited, which remains the assignee of record today, is paying small-entity maintenance fees (2020-02-18 and 2024-04-09), and commercially sells the TempTest / Thermapen / RayTemp products that expressly advertise US 9,470,560 as protecting their 360° rotating display. Zero of the eight NPE signals are present. Note the counterfactual: the category "Operating-company assertion" is not selected because that bucket additionally requires the current assignee to be suing actual competitors, and no infringement litigation naming this patent surfaced — the assignee is a product-practising operating company that is not, on the available record, asserting.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ → search patent number 9470560 → open reel/frame 029241/0756 to capture the Correspondent field (the one data point I could not retrieve and the single most useful remaining check). Cross-check at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9470560/en (Legal Events) and https://patents.justia.com/patent/9470560.

Residual uncertainty: (i) the assignment's correspondent/recording attorney is unknown to me here; (ii) I did not query RPX/Unified Patents asserter directories directly in this session, but no public source connects this patent or ETI to NPE assertion activity, and the product-marketing evidence plus ongoing maintenance-fee payment strongly corroborate continued operating-company ownership.

I'll research the prior art citations for US patent 9470560. Let me search for details on the key references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9470560 B2 ("Display assembly")

Target patent (as retrieved): US 9470560 B2, application US 13/668,938; filed 2012-11-05; priority GB 1214379.8 (2012-08-13); granted 2016-10-18; assignee Electronic Temperature Instruments Ltd; inventors Paul David Wyatt and David Parsons; adjusted expiration 2033-08-26.

I searched and confirmed the patent number 9470560 literally (US9470560B2). The analysis below is built from the authoritative full text you supplied (the 11 patent citations listed on the face of the patent), supplemented by web sources. Where a source conflicts with the supplied text, I follow the supplied text.

Important framing (per your rules and statute): §102 anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every limitation of a claim as arranged. Claim 1 is demanding: it requires first, second, third AND fourth display members, each comprising segment displays having a fixed viewing orientation, at least partially superimposed, fixed, and rotated relative to one another to form a sandwich of planar display members, with different fixed viewing orientations angularly offset relative to a single fixed point, and selectively actuated exclusively. None of the 11 references appears to disclose that complete combination in a single disclosure. Several, however, are highly material to specific dependent claims and to the general concept (transparent stacked displays; orientation-responsive display switching). I flag relevance honestly rather than overstating anticipation.

The 11 patent citations

1. US 2003/0058231 A1 — Kitaura

• Full citation: US 2003/0058231 A1, "Active matrix display panel and image display device adapting same"; inventor Kazuo Kitaura.
• Dates: filed 2001-09-25; published 2003-03-27.
• Description: Active-matrix display panel (pixel electrodes, storage capacitors, switching elements) and an image display device using it. General LCD/TFT panel architecture.
• Potential §102 relevance: Weak for the core claims. At most background art for the LCD/panel structure underlying claim 11 (display members between a polarizer and a backing element). Does not disclose superimposed, rotated display members or selective exclusive actuation; does not anticipate claim 1.

2. US 6,669,362 B1 — Radiant Innovation Inc. (Examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 6,669,362 B1, "Two-way display infrared thermometer"; assignee Radiant Innovation Inc. (Hsinchu, TW).
• Dates: filed 2002-09-20; granted 2003-12-30.
• Description: Infrared thermometer with a single LCD whose display direction is reversed by a direction detection device (mercury/ball switch) or a manual direction-switching device, so the value reads upright whether the device stands upright or upside down; includes a foldable mount.
• Potential §102 relevance: Material to the orientation-sensing / automatic actuation concepts and to the thermometer subject matter — e.g., claims 16–17 (sensor; orientation sensor) and claim 22 (thermometer). It uses one LCD with electronically reversed segments, not multiple physical display members, so it does not anticipate claim 1, nor the sandwich-of-members limitations.

3. US 2004/0125854 A1 — Pei-Hsiung Liu (granted as US 6,935,777 B2)

• Full citation: US 2004/0125854 A1, "Electronic thermometer with a directionally adjustable LCD display"; inventor Pei-Hsiung Liu (granted 2005-08-30 as US 6,935,777 B2).
• Dates: filed 2002-12-31; published 2004-07-01.
• Description: Electronic thermometer with an LCD carrying identifiable multi-direction characters/symbols and a direction-sensing element (roller/ball switch) or keybutton; the control circuit drives the display to present an upright reading whether held right- or left-handed.
• Potential §102 relevance: Same family of relevance as #2 — claims 16–17 and claim 22 (thermometer with direction-responsive display). Single display, no stacked/rotated members; does not anticipate claim 1.

4. GB 2 405 517 A — Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha

• Full citation: GB 2 405 517 A, "Multiple view display"; applicant Sharp K.K.
• Dates: priority 2003-08-30; published 2005-03-02.
• Description: Multiple-view / dual-view directional display using parallax optics (e.g., parallax barrier) and liquid-crystal cells to present different images to different viewing directions; related to G02F1/1347 stacked-cell and H04N13 multi-view classifications.
• Potential §102 relevance: Addresses the general idea of a display presenting different information depending on viewing direction (relevant background to claim 6 / multi-orientation viewing). It is a single-panel directional (auto-stereoscopic/dual-view) solution, not superimposed rotated segment displays; does not anticipate claim 1.

5. US 2007/0091011 A1 — Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc. (granted as US 7,999,759 B2) (Examiner-cited) — most relevant

• Full citation: US 2007/0091011 A1, "Z-Axis Redundant Display / Multilayer Display"; inventor Martin G. Selbrede; assignee Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc. (later Rambus Delaware); granted 2011-08-16 as US 7,999,759 B2.
• Dates: priority 2003-10-03 (parent US 10/678,789); filed 2006-11-17; published 2007-04-26.
• Description: A display system with two or more display modules stacked in a spaced relationship substantially along the Z-axis perpendicular to the display face. Each module can be selectively activated to display an image or deactivated to a quiescent (fully transparent) state; when a rear module is activated its image is viewed through the deactivated transparent front module. Claims recite first (visually transparent) module + second module, a third module option, single-module-at-a-time activation, and an opaque/dynamic-opaque back layer.
• Potential §102 relevance: This is the closest reference to the stacked/multi-layer, transparent, selectively actuated architecture. It is directly material to:
  • Claim 1 (sandwich of planar display members that are selectively actuated), subject to a critical gap: the reference stacks modules along the Z-axis (depth) and does not disclose rotation / angular offset between members, nor different fixed viewing orientations angularly offset relative to a single fixed point, nor segment displays. It therefore does not, by itself, anticipate claim 1.
  • Claim 3 / claim 7 (when no member is actuated each member is substantially viewable through another) — strongly suggested by the "deactivated = transparent" teaching.
  • Claim 6 (actuated member viewable through the other members) — directly taught.
  • Claim 1's "selectively actuated exclusively" maps to its "single module activated at one time" teaching.
• Net: Best single reference for the sandwich/transparency/selective-actuation concepts; alone it does not read on the rotation/orientation limitations of claim 1. Would more likely support an obviousness combination than a §102 anticipation.

6. DE 20 2008 002 127 U1 — Kundo Systemtechnik GmbH

• Full citation: DE 20 2008 002 127 U1, "Device for measuring consumption values in the home, in particular heat meters" (Kundo Systemtechnik GmbH). (An English translation is among the patent's Non-Patent Citations.)
• Dates: filed 2008-02-15; published 2008-04-30.
• Description: Utility-model device for measuring domestic consumption (heat meters), i.e., a metering display device.
• Potential §102 relevance: Peripheral. Its citation bears on measured-value display context — arguably background for claims 20–21 (element for measuring data) and thermometer claim 22. It discloses no superimposed/rotated display members; does not anticipate claim 1.

7. US 2010/0194683 A1 — Piper, John D. (Examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 2010/0194683 A1, "Multiple screen display device and method"; inventor John D. Piper.
• Dates: filed 2009-02-03; published 2010-08-05.
• Description: A display device using multiple screens.
• Potential §102 relevance: General relevance to multiple-screen / multiple-display arrangements (broadly the "two or more display members" idea). No teaching of rotation, stacking with transparency in the claimed sense, or exclusive selective actuation; does not anticipate claim 1.

8. US 2012/0002140 A1 — Tescom Co., Ltd. (Examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 2012/0002140 A1, "Liquid crystal display"; assignee Tescom Co., Ltd.
• Dates: priority 2008-12-04; published 2012-01-05.
• Description: Liquid crystal display (structure/driving). Co-classified with transparent/reflective LCD subject matter in the citation context.
• Potential §102 relevance: Background to the LCD display-member structure (e.g., claim 11 — polarizer/backing element). No disclosure of rotated/superimposed members; does not anticipate claim 1.

9. US 8,149,182 B2 — LG Display Co., Ltd. (Examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 8,149,182 B2, "Dual-view display device and method of driving the same"; assignee LG Display Co., Ltd.
• Dates: priority 2006-06-28; granted 2012-04-03.
• Description: Dual-view display in which different images are directed to different viewers/views.
• Potential §102 relevance: Relevant to presenting information at different viewing directions (background to the multi-orientation aspect and to claim 6). Single-panel dual-view solution, not superimposed rotated segment-display members; does not anticipate claim 1.

10. US 2012/0150482 A1 — Aleksan Yildizyan (Examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 2012/0150482 A1, "Thermometer with age specific feature selection"; inventor Aleksan Yildizyan.
• Dates: filed 2010-12-13; published 2012-06-14.
• Description: Electronic thermometer with model/feature selection.
• Potential §102 relevance: Thermometer art only — background relevance to claim 22 (thermometer). No display-member architecture; does not anticipate claim 1.

11. US 2012/0194763 A1 — Pusan National University Industry-University Cooperation Foundation (Examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 2012/0194763 A1, "Reflective and transparent liquid crystal display device"; assignee Pusan National University Industry-University Cooperation Foundation.
• Dates: priority 2011-02-01; published 2012-08-02.
• Description: A liquid crystal display device that is both reflective and transparent.
• Potential §102 relevance: Relevant to the transflective/backing-element and substantially transparent display members aspects — i.e., claims 3, 7, and 11 (transflective polarizer backing; transparency permitting viewing through members). Does not disclose rotated superimposed members or exclusive actuation; does not anticipate claim 1.

Summary assessment

Bottom line: On the face of the record, the single most relevant piece of prior art is US 2007/0091011 A1 (Uni-Pixel Displays / Selbrede, "Z-Axis Redundant Display / Multilayer Display"), because it discloses the stacked, transparent, individually (selectively) activated display-layer concept that underlies claims 1, 3, 6, and 7. Its weakness as an anticipatory reference is that it stacks along the Z-axis and never teaches rotating the members or giving them different angularly-offset fixed viewing orientations — the distinguishing features the examiner allowed over. The two thermometry references (US 6,669,362 and US 2004/0125854) are the most relevant to the orientation-sensing dependent claims (16–17) and to claim 22, but each uses a single directionally-switched display, not the claimed multi-member sandwich.

None of the 11 cited references, taken alone, appears to disclose every limitation of independent claim 1 as arranged; accordingly none clearly establishes §102 anticipation of claim 1. Their more probable role is as background art and as the basis of §103 obviousness combinations (e.g., Uni-Pixel's stacked transparent selectively-actuated modules, combined with a rotation/segment-display arrangement and an orientation sensor such as those in the Radiant Innovation / Liu thermometer references).

Confidence caveats: I have high confidence in the bibliographic data for the target patent and for US 6,669,362, US 2007/0091011, US 2004/0125854, GB 2 405 517, and US 8,149,182. I have lower confidence in the internal technical detail of US 2003/0058231, US 2010/0194683, US 2012/0002140, US 2012/0194763, US 2012/0150482, and DE 20 2008 002 127 U1 (only titles/assignees confirmed); their claim mapping above should be treated as indicative and verified against the full texts. This is a technical analysis, not legal advice, and does not constitute a legal conclusion of validity, patentability, or infringement.

I'll research the key prior-art references cited on the face of US 9,470,560 to ground the §103 analysis in what they actually disclose.

Let me pull details on the remaining cited references — particularly the thermometer-specific and stacked-LCD references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,470,560 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This analysis builds on the prior patent-summary section and does not repeat its bibliographic/claim-scope findings. The prior section flagged a material claim-drafting point I rely on here: granted claim 1 requires four display members, whereas the specification's principal embodiments (FIGS. 1–7) are two-layer assemblies and the four-layer version appears only as an alternative embodiment. That mismatch matters to the § 103 analysis because the two-member prior art (e.g., Radiant's two-way thermometer) is not literally on claim 1, but the gap is exactly the kind of gap that KSR and MPEP 2144.04 say a POSITA closes by routine extension.

I retrieved and verified the text of US 6,669,362, US 2007/0091011, GB 2405517, US 2012/0002140, and US 2012/0150482. I was unable to fully verify the disclosures of US 8,149,182, US 2010/0194683, US 2012/0194763, and DE 202008002127 before hitting a search-step limit; where I rely on those I say so explicitly and lean on the patent's own citation of them rather than asserting unverified content.

1. Legal framework applied

• Graham v. John Deere — scope/content of claims; differences over prior art; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l v. Teleflex — a combination is obvious where prior-art elements are combined "according to known methods to yield predictable results," or where a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" exists. The predictability of the four-orientation arrangement is the crux here.
• MPEP 2143 — exemplary rationales: (A) combining known elements with predictable results; (B) simple substitution; (C) use of known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; (F) "obvious to try."

PHOSITA (proposed): a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical/electronic engineering or physics and 2–4 years' experience in segmented LCD instrument design (thermometers, meters, handheld instruments), familiar with transparent/reflective LCDs and layer-stacking of liquid-crystal cells.

2. Claim 1, element by element, against the core two-reference combination

Core combination: US 6,669,362 B1 (Radiant Innovation) as primary reference + US 2007/0091011 A1 (Uni-Pixel) as secondary. Both are examiner-cited (the * entries), i.e., they were the references the examiner considered material.

Result: every element of claim 1 is disclosed or rendered obvious by the Radiant + Uni-Pixel combination, with the only arguable "new" feature being the number and angular spacing of the stacked layers. That feature is addressed in § 3.

3. Why the four-member / four-orientation limitation would have been obvious

This is the one limitation the patent apparently added to escape the two-member prior art, so it deserves the closest scrutiny. Three independent lines support obviousness:

(i) A finite, predictable set of solutions. Radiant already teaches displaying the same reading at two orientations about one axis (upright/upside-down). Once a designer is stacking transparent, independently actuated planar modules (Uni-Pixel), the available set of layer orientations about the common stack axis is a small, finite set — 0°, 90°, 180°, 270° is the natural four-fold partition of a rotationally symmetric square display. KSR's "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" rationale applies directly.

(ii) The construction is the same regardless of count. Uni-Pixel expressly claims a third module stacked on the second, and its stated advantages (freeing X-Y console area, same physical location for all information, easier-to-read displays) are count-independent. Adding third and fourth layers is a "simple substitution" / repetition of a known element (MPEP 2143(B)) with no change in principle of operation.

(iii) The patent's own specification concedes the extension. The "Another exemplary embodiment comprises four display members … each rotated by 90° with respect to another … first at 0°, second at 90°, third at 180° and a fourth at 270°." A POSITA reading the two-member prior art would arrive at that embodiment as a matter of ordinary design iteration — which is what the specification does too.

Secondary/corroborating references for the angular-offset concept:

• GB 2405517 A (Sharp, "Multiple view display") — teaches LCD modes "with inherently asymmetric viewing angle in order to make an image viewable from a particular direction only," and displays "using a plurality of pixel types with different viewing directions to provide multiple view displays." This is a direct teaching that viewing direction is an addressable, selectable display parameter.
• US 8,149,182 B2 (LG Display, "Dual-view display device") — examiner-cited; its very title reflects displaying two differently-oriented views from one display stack. (I did not independently re-fetch its full text; I rely on the title/assignment and the examiner's citation.)
• US 2004/0125854 A1 (Liu, "Electronic thermometer with a directionally adjustable LCD display") — a thermometer-specific teaching of making the readout direction adjustable, i.e., the same field and problem as the patent.

4. Motivation to combine (why a POSITA would have done this)

1. Same field, same problem. Radiant, Liu, and the patent are all in electronic thermometry; Radiant states the object is reading the measurement "regardless of standing upright or upside down." Uni-Pixel is in "the field of flat panel displays." Combining a display-architecture reference with a thermometer-display reference is the classic same-field/obvious-combination posture.
2. The art itself signals the improvement. Radiant solves multi-orientation by electronically rotating one LCD's content (a direction-switching device / mercury- or ball-switch sensor). A POSITA seeking a compact, low-cost alternative — the very advantages the patent touts ("compact, inexpensive … low power") — would look to stacking, because Uni-Pixel expressly teaches that Z-axis stacking frees X-Y surface area and lets backup/multiple information occupy "the exact same location in the console." That is a direct, articulated motivation.
3. Predictable results, no change in principle. Stacking transparent planar segment LCDs and illuminating one at a time does not change how a segment LCD operates; each layer is a conventional LCD. Expected success is high.
4. Design incentive / market force. Handheld instruments are read from variable hand/stand orientations; the prior summary's commercial context (ETI's "rotates in 90° increments" feature) confirms this was a recognized market need, and market pressure to satisfy a known need supports a motivation to combine.

5. Dependent-claim mapping (each obvious over the same or an obvious further combination)

6. Anticipated counterarguments and how they fare

• "Prior art teaches one rotating display, not stacked displays." Correct — that is why the Uni-Pixel (or Tescom/Pusan) reference is needed for the sandwich/transparency element. But the combination rationale is strong (compactness motivation, articulated in Uni-Pixel itself), so this is a combination case, not anticipation.
• "Radiant only does 0°/180°, not 90° increments." Radiant plus GB 2405517 (multiple, direction-specific view modes) closes this; and four-fold spacing is a predictable partition.
• "Different fields (avionics/security vs. thermometry)." Uni-Pixel's stated applications span avionics, 3-D, security and "reality overlay," but the architecture claim (stacked transparent selectively-activated modules) is field-agnostic and the motivation (surface-area freedom, same-location information) is general to any instrument. Analogous-art reasoning applies; the problem (compact multi-orientation readout) is the same.
• Secondary considerations. I found no evidence of unexpected results, long-felt-but-unmet need beyond the marketing claims, industry praise, or a documented failure of others. If commercial-success evidence is asserted (ETI TempTest/Thermapen), it would require a nexus to the claimed four-layer architecture — and, per the prior section, the marketed "90° increments" feature is realized commercially in two-layer products, which undercuts nexus to the four-member claim. Copying/industry-adoption arguments would need corroboration.

7. Conclusion

Claims 1 and 22–24 are, in my assessment, likely obvious under § 103 over US 6,669,362 (Radiant) in view of US 2007/0091011 (Uni-Pixel) — with GB 2405517 (Sharp) and/or US 2012/0002140 (Tescom) supplying the angularly-offset and stacked-LC-cell details — and further in view of US 2012/0150482 (Yildizyan) and US 2004/0125854 (Liu) for the thermometer-specific and transparent-LCD/backlight elements. Dependent claims 2–21 are each obvious over these references alone or in further view of the remaining cited art (Pusan, LG dual-view, Piper).

The single most contestable limitation is the "four display members / four angularly offset orientations" requirement. It is saved from anticipation only by the fact that the two-member prior art lacks literal four-member disclosure; but under KSR it is vulnerable as a predictable, finite-set, count-independent extension of the Uni-Pixel stack driven by Radiant's expressed multi-orientation objective. Should the patentee rely on the four-member scope as the inventive point, the strongest available rebuttal would be a secondary-considerations/nexus showing tied specifically to four layers — evidence I have not seen and could not locate.

Verification limits (stated explicitly)

• Fully verified from primary text: US 6,669,362; US 2007/0091011; GB 2405517; US 2012/0002140; US 2012/0150482 (via Google Patents/PDF/CN family text).
• Relled upon from the patent's own citation and title/abstract only (full text not re-verified here): US 8,149,182; US 2010/0194683; US 2012/0194763; DE 202008002127; US 2003/0058231; US 2004/0125854. Any assertion about those references' specific disclosure should be re-checked against their full texts before being relied on in a validity opinion.
• This is a technical analysis, not legal advice, and does not constitute a validity or infringement opinion.