PTAB

IPR2017-00563

K S Himpp v. III Holdings 7 LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Hearing Aid Having a Transmission Detection and Switch System
  • Brief Description: The ’034 patent discloses a hearing aid with a system that receives audio signals from both a primary source (e.g., a local microphone) and a secondary wireless source (e.g., a television or telephone). The system analyzes the secondary signal and automatically selects or combines the audio signals to be sent to the hearing aid's output circuitry.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Scheller and Zilberman - Claims 1, 4-7, 23-27, 34, and 38-40 are obvious over Scheller in view of Zilberman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Scheller (Patent 5,802,183) and Zilberman (Patent 5,824,022).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Scheller disclosed a hearing aid system with nearly all limitations of independent claim 1, including a primary microphone, a secondary wireless receiver, and circuitry for outputting audio. Scheller provided three modes of operation: microphone only, receiver only, or a mixed mode where the microphone signal is attenuated. However, Scheller used a manual switch for mode selection. Petitioner asserted that Zilberman taught the missing element: circuitry for automatically analyzing a secondary audio signal and selecting or combining it with a primary signal based on whether the secondary signal exceeds a predetermined threshold.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Zilberman’s automatic switching functionality with Scheller’s hearing aid to improve user experience. Scheller’s small manual switch would be difficult to operate for many users, particularly the elderly, young children, or those with diminished dexterity. Replacing it with Zilberman’s automated system, which dynamically adjusts based on signal strength, would provide a clear advantage by eliminating the need for manual intervention.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as integrating Zilberman’s known signal processing and switching logic into Scheller’s hearing aid architecture involved applying predictable electronic principles.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Scheller, Zilberman, and Killion - Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over Scheller in view of Zilberman and Killion.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Scheller (Patent 5,802,183), Zilberman (Patent 5,824,022), and Killion (Patent 5,524,056).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Scheller and Zilberman to address dependent claims 2 and 3, which specified that the primary audio source comprises an omnidirectional or directional microphone, respectively. Petitioner argued that while Scheller taught a "conventional" microphone without specifying its type, Killion explicitly disclosed a hearing aid using both omnidirectional and directional microphones. Killion taught switching between them to optimize performance in different noise environments (e.g., omnidirectional for quiet settings, directional for noisy situations).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Killion’s teachings into the Scheller/Zilberman system to improve its functionality. Since omnidirectional and directional microphones were well-known options for hearing aids, selecting one for Scheller’s primary microphone would have been an obvious design choice to provide users with enhanced hearing capabilities tailored to specific acoustic environments.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Scheller, Zilberman, and Sharma - Claims 28 and 35 are obvious over Scheller in view of Zilberman and Sharma.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Scheller (Patent 5,802,183), Zilberman (Patent 5,824,022), and Sharma (Patent 5,812,598).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 28 and 35, which required the secondary audio signal to be transmitted using a "pulse width modulated magnetic field." Scheller taught wireless transmission via a low-power FM radio frequency (RF) signal. Petitioner contended that Sharma taught a hearing assistance system using a short-range, magnetically coupled wireless system that employed pulse-width modulation to transmit audio.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would substitute Sharma’s magnetic transmission method for Scheller’s RF method to gain known benefits. Sharma explicitly taught that using audio-frequency magnetic coupling avoids FCC regulations and licensing associated with RF systems and results in lower power consumption—a key requirement for small, battery-operated devices like hearing aids.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Scheller, Zilberman, and Bartschi - Claims 29 and 36 are obvious over Scheller in view of Zilberman and Bartschi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Scheller (Patent 5,802,183), Zilberman (Patent 5,824,022), and Bartschi (Patent 5,734,976).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted claims 29 and 36, which specified transmission of the secondary audio signal using a "frequency modulated magnetic field." While Scheller taught using an antenna for receiving FM signals, it did not specify magnetic field transmission. Bartschi disclosed a hearing aid micro-receiver with a magnetically operated antenna specifically designed to receive high-frequency, frequency-modulated magnetic field signals.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these teachings by configuring the antenna in the Scheller/Zilberman system to operate with frequency-modulated magnetic fields as taught by Bartschi. This modification would be a straightforward application of a known wireless transmission technique to achieve predictable results in a similar device.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "hearing aid circuitry": Petitioner asserted that, based on the specification of the ’034 patent, a POSA would understand this term to mean "circuitry in a hearing aid that generates an audio output for transmission into the ear canal of the hearing aid user." This construction was based on the patent’s description of circuitry 115, which includes an amplifier and speaker that generate the final audio output for the user.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7, 23-29, 34-36, and 38-40 of the ’034 patent as unpatentable.