PTAB

IPR2015-00104

GN ReSound As v. Oticon AS

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Hearing Device and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’863 patent discloses a hearing aid capable of wireless communication. The technology centers on using an electrically conductive element, such as the wire connecting a behind-the-ear unit to an in-the-ear receiver, to function as both a conductor for audio signals and as an antenna for receiving or transmitting radio frequency (RF) signals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Meskens and Yoshino ’869 - Claims 1, 4, 11, 12, 17-19, and 25 are obvious over Meskens in view of Yoshino ’869.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Meskens (Application # 2008/0304686) and Yoshino ’869 (Application # 2006/0071869).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Meskens discloses all elements of a hearing device as claimed, including a behind-the-ear portion, an in-the-ear portion, and a coupling element with two balanced wires. Meskens also discloses using a conductive body as an antenna. Petitioner contended that the only alleged missing element from Meskens, as argued by the Patent Owner during a prior reexamination, was the explicit teaching that the same balanced wires function for both audio signal transmission and as part of the RF antenna. Petitioner asserted that Yoshino ’869 explicitly discloses this missing feature, teaching balanced signal lines that serve as dual-function audio transmission lines and as a receiving antenna for high-frequency signals in a hearing device. Yoshino ’869 also teaches related circuitry, including baluns and filters.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of Yoshino ’869 with the hearing aid structure of Meskens to create an improved device. The motivation would be to integrate a high-sensitivity, wide-band antenna with an earphone unit to overcome known problems of signal noise from the human body, a problem addressed by Yoshino ’869.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these known elements, as it involved applying established antenna principles and circuit designs from Yoshino ’869 to the known hearing aid architecture of Meskens.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Halstead and Yoshino ’869 - Claims 1, 4, 11, 17, and 25 are obvious over Halstead in view of Yoshino ’869.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Halstead (Patent 2,535,063) and Yoshino ’869 (Application # 2006/0071869).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Halstead, an earlier reference, discloses a hearing device with a coupling element containing twin conductors for transmitting an audio signal and an outer metallic braid that functions as an antenna. However, Halstead does not explicitly disclose that the twin conductors themselves function as balanced wires that are also part of the antenna. Yoshino ’869 was argued to supply this teaching by describing the use of twin lead conductors as balanced, dual-function signal lines for both audio and RF signals. The combination of Halstead’s basic hearing aid structure and Yoshino ’869’s advanced antenna design was argued to render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the dual-function balanced line antenna design from Yoshino ’869 into the system of Halstead to improve performance. This modification would provide a more integrated and efficient antenna system by utilizing existing conductors, a known design goal in miniaturized electronics like hearing aids.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Meskens, Yoshino ’869, and Yoshino ’289 - Claim 5 is obvious over Meskens in view of Yoshino ’869 and Yoshino ’289.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Meskens (Application # 2008/0304686), Yoshino ’869 (Application # 2006/0071869), and Yoshino ’289 (Application # 2005/0245289).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of Meskens and Yoshino ’869 to address the additional limitations of claim 5, which requires that the claimed balun comprises a transformer. While the primary combination teaches a hearing aid with a dual-function antenna and a balun, it does not explicitly state the balun's composition. Yoshino ’289 was introduced to provide this missing element, as it explicitly teaches a typical balun that comprises a transformer.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having decided to implement a balun as taught by the primary combination, would have naturally looked to common and well-known balun designs. Implementing the standard transformer-based balun taught by Yoshino ’289 would have been an obvious and predictable design choice to achieve the required balanced-to-unbalanced signal conversion.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the core combinations of Meskens/Halstead and Yoshino ’869. These grounds added tertiary references to teach specific, well-known features for dependent claims, such as using the Bluetooth communication standard (Hagedoorn, Application # 2003/0045283) and implementing a hearing device of a specific small size (Fretz, Patent 7,027,608).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "a size" (Claim 20): Petitioner proposed that this term should be construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation as "any measureable dimension."
  • "on the order of 0.01 m" (Claim 20): Petitioner proposed this term be interpreted as "within a range in close proximity to 0.01 m," asserting it defines a general range rather than a precise value.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 16-20, and 25 of the ’863 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.