PTAB

IPR2017-00414

K/S HIMPP v. III HOLDINGS 4, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multi-Mode Hearing Aid System
  • Brief Description: The ’538 patent relates to a multi-mode hearing aid that receives both analog environmental sound via a microphone (a first signal) and digital sound data from an external electronic device via a transceiver (a second signal). The system's processor applies distinct "hearing aid profiles" to these signals and can operate in different modes, including a first mode outputting the processed microphone signal, a second mode outputting the processed external signal, and a third mode outputting a combination of both.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-3 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 nearly all elements of independent claim 1. Cohen disclosed a multi-mode hearing aid with a microphone for a first signal, a Bluetooth transceiver for receiving a second signal from an external source, and a processor that applies different "presets" (argued to be equivalent to the claimed "hearing aid profiles") for each mode of operation. However, Petitioner contended Cohen did not explicitly disclose the claimed "third mode" where both the first and second signals are combined and output to the user.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Martin, which is also in the hearing aid field, remedied this deficiency by explicitly teaching a "combination mode" or "mixed mode." Martin taught mixing microphone audio with audio from an external source (e.g., an induction coil). A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine Martin's mixed-mode functionality with Cohen's device to provide the well-known and desirable benefit of allowing a user to listen to an external audio source while remaining aware of ambient sounds, such as conversations or doorbells.
    • Expectation of Success: As both references operate in the same field and address common hearing aid functionalities, a POSA would have found it straightforward to integrate Martin's known mixing technique into Cohen's system with a high expectation of success and predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 4 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 Cohen/Martin combination to address the additional limitations of dependent claim 4, which requires a hardwired "input port" for receiving a third signal from a media player. Petitioner argued that while Cohen and Martin focused on wireless connections, Niederdränk explicitly disclosed that hearing aids can have a hardwired audio input for connection to external devices like radios, TVs, and CD/MP3 players.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would have been motivated to add the wired connection taught by Niederdränk to the Cohen/Martin system for several reasons. It would provide a simple, low-power alternative to Bluetooth, which was not ubiquitous on all media players at the time and could be complex for some users. This modification would increase the device's versatility and reliability.
    • Expectation of Success: Adding a standard physical audio input port to an electronic device like a hearing aid was argued to be a simple, routine modification well within the skill of a POSA.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-3 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 this as an alternative ground, substituting Holmes for Cohen as the primary reference. Petitioner argued that Holmes disclosed a "multi-mode hearing aid headset" that, like Cohen, taught a microphone, a Bluetooth transceiver, and a "mode selector" (processor) that applies different "hearing aid profiles" based on the selected input source. As with Cohen, Petitioner contended Holmes taught all elements of claim 1 except for the third "mixed" mode that combines both audio signals.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Holmes with Martin was identical to the rationale for combining Cohen with Martin. A POSA would be motivated to incorporate Martin's known mixed-mode feature into the Holmes device to enhance user experience by enabling simultaneous listening to external media and ambient environmental sounds.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination of Holmes and Martin was argued to be a predictable integration of known technologies to achieve a well-understood benefit, with no technical hurdles that a POSA could not overcome.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Cohen or Holmes with references including Baechler (for adaptive noise filtering), Widrow (for general signal processing), and Goldberg (for signal synchronization), but relied on similar design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "hearing aid profile" was given a specific definition by the Patent Owner in the ’538 patent specification, meaning the Patent Owner acted as their own lexicographer.
  • Petitioner proposed that the term should be construed according to this explicit definition: "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." This construction was central to Petitioner's arguments that the "presets" taught by Cohen and the "profiles" taught by Holmes met this claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 of Patent 8,649,538 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.