PTAB

IPR2017-00564

K S Himpp v. III Holdings 7 LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Hearing Aid with Transmission Detection and Switch System
  • Brief Description: The ’034 patent discloses a hearing aid system designed to receive audio signals from two sources: a primary source (e.g., a local microphone) and a secondary source (e.g., a wireless transmitter). The system includes circuitry to detect the transmission from the secondary source and automatically switch between, or combine, the audio signals provided to the user.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Scheller and Zilberman - Claims 8, 10-13, 16-19, 21, 22, and 31-33 are obvious over Scheller in view of Zilberman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Scheller (Patent 5,802,183), Zilberman (Patent 5,824,022).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Scheller taught a hearing aid system with a primary microphone and a secondary wireless receiver, capable of operating in three modes: 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 supplied the missing element: an automatic system. Zilberman, though directed to a cochlear implant system, taught a control processor that analyzes signals from two different microphones, dynamically fades between them, and combines them based on whether one signal exceeds a prescribed threshold. The combination of Scheller's hearing aid architecture with Zilberman's automatic analysis and switching circuitry would allegedly render the independent claims (e.g., claim 8) obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Scheller and Zilberman to improve user experience. Replacing Scheller’s small, manual switch with Zilberman’s automated system would provide a significant benefit, especially for users with diminished dexterity (e.g., elderly, young children). The combination would automate the process of switching to the appropriate audio source based on signal presence, a known problem with a predictable solution.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success, as adding Zilberman's control processor to Scheller's hearing aid was a straightforward integration of known electronic components to achieve a predictable improvement in functionality.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Scheller, Zilberman, and Killion - Claims 9, 14, 15, and 20 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 Scheller/Zilberman combination to address dependent claims requiring the primary microphone to be either directional or omnidirectional. Petitioner contended that while Scheller taught a "conventional" microphone, it did not specify its type. Killion explicitly taught a hearing aid that used both an omnidirectional microphone (for quiet environments) and a directional microphone (for noisy environments) with a switching circuit to select between them. Petitioner argued that adding this feature from Killion to the base Scheller/Zilberman system was an obvious design choice.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to incorporate Killion’s teachings to improve the hearing aid's performance in various listening environments. Using switchable directional and omnidirectional microphones was a well-known technique to enhance speech clarity in noise, providing a clear functional advantage. It represented the selection of a known, advantageous component from a finite number of design options.
    • Expectation of Success: The integration of different microphone types was a common and well-understood practice in hearing aid design, ensuring a POSA would have a reasonable expectation of successfully implementing this feature.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Scheller, Zilberman, and Fazio - Claims 13, 16-19, 21, 22, 32, and 33 are obvious over Scheller in view of Zilberman and Fazio.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Scheller (Patent 5,802,183), Zilberman (Patent 5,824,022), and Fazio (Patent 5,768,397).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented Fazio as an alternative or supplemental reference to teach the "detector" element recited in claims like 13 and 19. Petitioner argued that Fazio disclosed a hearing aid with a "carrier detection circuit" that automatically detected an incoming signal from a cellular telephone and switched the audio source from the local microphone to the telephone input. Fazio’s detector, which produced a control signal with two states to operate an electronic switch, was argued to be structurally and functionally equivalent to the detector claimed in the ’034 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would have been motivated to add Fazio's carrier detection circuit to the Scheller/Zilberman system to provide a practical and reliable method for detecting the secondary wireless signal. Fazio offered a concrete example of using carrier detection—a known technique—to implement the exact type of automatic switching needed to improve upon Scheller's manual system.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing a carrier detection circuit as taught by Fazio was a standard engineering task within the skill of a POSA, leading to a high expectation of success in creating the claimed system.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Claims 14, 15, and 20 over Scheller in view of Zilberman, Fazio, and Killion) that combined the teachings of all primary references.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Hearing aid circuitry": Petitioner argued that based on the specification and prosecution history, 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 language stating that the "hearing aid circuitry 115, which may be, for example, a hearing aid amplifier and speaker, in turn generates an audio output 117."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8-22 and 31-33 of the ’034 patent as unpatentable.