1964 Ears, LLC v. JERRY HARVEY AUDIO HOLDING, LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR Unassigned
• Patent #: 8,897,463
• Filed: January 21, 2016
• Petitioner(s): 1964 EARS, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): JERRY HARVEY AUDIO HOLDING, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-16

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Dual High Frequency Driver Canalphone System
• Brief Description: The ’463 patent discloses a personal listening device, specifically an in-ear monitor (IEM) or “canalphone,” that uses a multi-driver system. The system comprises a housing containing two low-frequency drivers (LFDs), two midrange-frequency drivers (MFDs), and two high-frequency drivers (HFDs), with a focus on positioning the two HFDs so their oscillations interact to reduce harmonic distortion.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Warren, Nielsen/van Halteren/Mostardo, and van Halteren ’223 - Claims 1 and 7 are obvious over Warren in view of Nielsen, van Halteren ’807, or Mostardo, and in further view of van Halteren ’223.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Warren (Application # 2008/0031481), Nielsen (Application # 2008/0170732), van Halteren (’807 application), Mostardo (WO 95/07014), and van Halteren (’223 application).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Warren taught the foundational structure of an IEM with dual LFDs, MFDs, and HFDs. The key limitation of claim 1—positioning two HFDs where their oscillations interact to reduce harmonic distortion—was allegedly inherent in the teachings of Nielsen, van Halteren ’807, or Mostardo. These references each disclosed positioning identical drivers in a dual-receiver unit to increase the Sound Pressure Level (SPL), or output. Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have known that increasing a speaker's SPL capability increases its "headroom," which necessarily reduces harmonic distortion when the drivers are operated at high volumes. Finally, Petitioner asserted that van Halteren ’223 taught dual HFDs capable of producing frequencies up to 20 kHz, encompassing the claimed range of 12,000 to 18,000 hertz.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references to improve the overall audio fidelity and performance of Warren’s IEM. The motivation would be to use the dual-driver configurations of Nielsen, van Halteren ’807, or Mostardo to increase the SPL capability and to incorporate the high-frequency tweeters of van Halteren ’223 to provide more faithful sound reproduction across the human hearing range.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success, as combining known driver configurations to increase output and extend frequency response were common design goals with predictable outcomes in the field of audio engineering.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Harvey ’806, van Halteren ’223, and Nielsen/van Halteren/Mostardo - Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are obvious over Harvey ’806 in view of van Halteren ’223, and in further view of Nielsen, van Halteren ’807, or Mostardo.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Harvey (’806 patent), van Halteren (’223 application), Nielsen (Application # 2008/0170732), van Halteren (’807 application), and Mostardo (WO 95/07014).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative obviousness theory starting with the Harvey ’806 patent, which taught an IEM with a single LFD, MFD, and HFD. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to modify Harvey ’806 by replacing its single drivers with the dual-driver modules taught by van Halteren ’223. This combination would result in the claimed system of dual LFDs, MFDs, and HFDs. The logic for the "reduced harmonic distortion" limitation followed the same reasoning as in Ground 1, relying on the teachings of Nielsen, van Halteren ’807, or Mostardo to show that positioning dual drivers for increased SPL inherently reduces distortion. Arguments for dependent claims 2-4 (sound tubes and tuning) and 7-8 (balanced armatures and crossovers) were based on additional teachings within Harvey ’806 itself.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Harvey ’806 with van Halteren ’223 to improve sound quality and intensity while simultaneously achieving space savings, a critical consideration in compact IEMs. van Halteren ’223 explicitly taught that using dual transducers provides higher sound intensity and is space-efficient. The motivation to add the teachings of Nielsen, et al. was to further improve performance by maximizing SPL.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination was a predictable design choice of upgrading an existing single-driver system with a known dual-driver technology to achieve well-understood benefits like higher output and better space utilization.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted 14 additional obviousness challenges against claims 1-16. These grounds relied on the same core combinations of Warren or Harvey ’806 with Nielsen/van Halteren/Mostardo and van Halteren ’223, but added further prior art references such as Sperrazza, Babb, and Harvey ’479 to address specific limitations in dependent claims related to lighter driver mass, reduced power requirements, sound tubes, and crossovers.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of all claims of Patent 8,897,463 as unpatentable.