PTAB

IPR2017-00414

K S Himpp v. III Holdings 4 LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multi-Mode Hearing Aid
  • Brief Description: The ’538 patent discloses a multi-mode hearing aid that receives both environmental sound via a microphone (a first signal) and sound data from an external electronic device via a transceiver (a second signal). The hearing aid's processor applies different "hearing aid profiles" to these signals depending on the selected mode of operation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cohen and Martin - Claims 1-3 are obvious over Cohen in view of Martin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cohen (Application # 2007/0255435) and Martin (Application # 2003/0059076).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cohen taught all elements of independent claim 1 except for a "third mode" that combines the first (microphone) and second (transceiver) signals. Cohen disclosed a multi-mode hearing aid with a microphone, a Bluetooth transceiver, and a processor that applies different "presets" (argued to be equivalent to the claimed "hearing aid profiles") based on the selected mode, such as a "hearing aid mode" or "phone mode." However, Cohen’s modes were alternative, not combined. Martin was introduced to teach a "combination mode" where microphone input and a second input (e.g., from an induction coil) are mixed, thus supplying the missing third mode limitation. For dependent claims 2 and 3, Cohen was alleged to teach that the second signal can be received from media players like televisions and radios.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Martin’s mixed-mode functionality with Cohen’s device to improve its utility. Martin explicitly stated the advantage of a mixed mode: it allows a user to listen to an audio source (e.g., a lecturer in a hall) while also perceiving ambient sounds (e.g., a neighbor speaking). This provides the user with enhanced situational awareness, a well-known goal in hearing aid design.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining audio signals from two sources into a single output was a well-understood and routinely implemented technique in audio engineering, ensuring a POSA would have a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Cohen, Martin, and Niederdränk - Claim 4 is obvious over Cohen in view of Martin and Niederdränk.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cohen (Application # 2007/0255435), Martin (Application # 2003/0059076), and Niederdränk (Patent 7,519,194).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Cohen and Martin for claim 1 and added Niederdränk to address the limitations of dependent claim 4, which required a physical "input port" for a wired connection to a media player. While Cohen focused on wireless (Bluetooth) connections, Niederdränk explicitly taught that hearing aids were known to have audio inputs for hardwired connections to external devices like CD or MP3 players.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would add a wired input port to Cohen's hearing aid to increase its versatility. This would provide a simple, low-power connection option for users unfamiliar with Bluetooth or for connecting to older media players that lack wireless capabilities.
    • Expectation of Success: Adding a standard physical audio input to an electronic device like a hearing aid was a straightforward and predictable modification for a POSA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Holmes and Martin - Claims 1-3 are obvious over Holmes in view of Martin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Holmes (Application # 2007/0098195) and Martin (Application # 2003/0059076).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Holmes as an alternative primary reference to Cohen that also disclosed the core features of claim 1. Holmes taught a "wireless hearing aid headset" with a microphone, a Bluetooth transceiver, and a "mode selector" (argued to be a processor) that applies different "hearing aid profiles" based on the audio source. Similar to Cohen, Holmes taught distinct operating modes but did not explicitly disclose a mode combining the microphone and transceiver signals. Martin was again relied upon to teach this missing mixed-mode functionality.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Holmes and Martin was identical to the motivation for combining Cohen and Martin: to add the known benefit of a mixed-signal mode that allows the user to listen to a media stream while remaining aware of their surroundings.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable integration of known technologies to achieve a known benefit in the field of hearing aids.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges that followed the same pattern, using either Cohen or Holmes as the primary reference. These grounds added further prior art combinations to meet the specific limitations of dependent claims 5-7, including Baechler (for adaptive noise filtering), Widrow (for processing filtered signals), and Goldberg (for synchronizing audio signals). The core arguments relied on combining known techniques to improve hearing aid functionality.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Hearing aid profile": Petitioner argued that the patent owner acted as a lexicographer, providing an explicit definition in the specification: "a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user's hearing loss." Petitioner adopted this definition, contending it was consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning and encompassed the "presets" taught by Cohen and the "profiles" taught by Holmes.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’538 patent as unpatentable.