PTAB

IPR2017-00564

K/S HIMPP v. III HOLDINGS, 7, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Hearing Aid with Transmission Detection and Switching
  • Brief Description: The ’034 patent relates to a hearing aid system that includes a transmission detection and switch system. This system receives audio signals from both a primary source (e.g., a local microphone) and a secondary, wirelessly transmitted source, and can select or combine these signals for output 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 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • 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 taught a hearing aid system with a manual switch for selecting between a microphone-only mode, a receiver-only mode, and a mixed mode that combines a wireless receiver signal with an attenuated microphone signal. This was alleged to disclose most limitations of independent claims 8, 13, and 19. Petitioner contended the primary missing element was the automatic "circuitry for analyzing the second audio signal received" and selecting an output based on that analysis. Zilberman was argued to supply this missing element, as it taught a hearing aid system with a control/speech processor that automatically analyzes signals and dynamically selects between a first signal, a second signal, or a combination based on whether the second signal exceeds a prescribed threshold.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the automatic switching of Zilberman with Scheller's system to improve usability. Petitioner asserted that operating Scheller's small manual switch would be difficult for users, particularly those with diminished dexterity. Automating the switch based on the presence of the secondary wireless signal, as taught by Zilberman, would be an obvious improvement to avoid the need for manual adjustments when a user moves in and out of a transmitter's range.
    • Expectation of Success: Both references are in the field of hearing assistance devices and use analogous components. Petitioner argued a POSA would have a high expectation of success in replacing a manual switch with a known automated control circuit to achieve the predictable result of a more user-friendly device.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Scheller, Zilberman, and Killion - Claims 9, 14, 15, and 20 are obvious over Scheller in view of Zilberman and Killion under §103.

  • 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 microphone to be "one of a directional or an omnidirectional microphone." While Scheller taught a "conventional" microphone, Petitioner asserted that Killion explicitly taught a hearing aid that beneficially includes both omnidirectional and directional microphones, with a circuit to switch between them to improve performance in different noise environments.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Killion’s teachings into the Scheller/Zilberman system to enhance performance, a well-known goal in the hearing aid art. Petitioner argued that using a specific type of known microphone (directional or omnidirectional) as taught by Killion was an obvious design choice to provide known advantages based on the ambient noise environment.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating a known microphone type from Killion into another hearing aid system was presented as a straightforward modification with predictable benefits for speech clarity in noisy situations.

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 under §103.

  • 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 supplement to Zilberman for teaching the "detector for detecting receipt of the second audio signal." Petitioner argued that Fazio disclosed a hearing aid with a "carrier detection circuit" that automatically detects a telephone-based signal and generates a control signal to an electronic switch to change operating modes. This structure was argued to be the same as or equivalent to the detector recited in the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to automate the switching in Scheller's device would look to known techniques for signal detection. Fazio provided a practical and established method (carrier detection) for automatically detecting a secondary signal and switching modes. This was argued to be an obvious technique to apply to the Scheller system to achieve the desired automation.
    • Expectation of Success: Adding a known carrier detection circuit from Fazio to the Scheller system was presented as a simple application of a known technique to improve a similar device (a hearing aid) in a predictable way (automating signal detection and mode switching).

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 14, 15, and 20 based on the four-way combination of Scheller, Zilberman, Fazio, and Killion, relying on similar rationales for combining the various disclosed features.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "hearing aid circuitry" should be construed to mean "circuitry in a hearing aid that generates an audio output for transmission into the ear canal of the hearing aid user." This proposed construction was based on the ’034 patent’s specification, which describes the circuitry as including, for example, a hearing aid amplifier and speaker that generate an audio output for the user's ear canal.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8-22 and 31-33 of Patent 6,694,034 as unpatentable.