PTAB

IPR2017-00781

K S Himpp v. III Holdings 4 LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Hearing Aid with Incremental Hearing Adjustment
Brief Description: The ’999 patent relates to a hearing aid that provides an incremental or progressive hearing adjustment for a user. The system is designed to ease a new user's transition from an uncompensated to a fully-compensated hearing level through a gradual process of "acclimatization."

Prior Art Relied Upon: Fichtl (Patent 8,787,603), Mangold (Patent 4,972,487), and Bisgaard (Patent 6,741,712).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fichtl disclosed the core elements of claim 1, including a hearing aid with an "acclimatization algorithm" that incrementally increases compensation over time based on power-on events. To the extent Fichtl was deficient, Mangold was cited to supply the teachings of selecting a hearing profile from a plurality of profiles stored in memory. Bisgaard was added to teach the final limitation of claim 1: causing a speaker to output an alert when the final acclimatization filter is applied, which Bisgaard taught for notifying a user when an acclimatization sequence is complete.
- Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references, all in the field of programmable hearing aids, to create a more effective and user-friendly device. Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine Mangold's multi-profile functionality with Fichtl's system to provide users with settings for different listening environments. Adding Bisgaard's alert was argued to be a simple addition to provide beneficial user feedback, a known problem to address.
- Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known solutions to known problems within the same technical field, which would have yielded predictable results.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Fichtl (Patent 8,787,603), Mangold (Patent 4,972,487), Bisgaard (Patent 6,741,712), and Sacha (Application # 2003/0215105).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 by adding Sacha to address the limitations of claim 18, which depends from claim 1. Claim 18 requires the processor to "determine an amount of time during which the first hearing correction filter is applied" and then "apply the second hearing correction filter when the amount of time exceeds a pre-determined threshold." Petitioner argued Sacha explicitly disclosed an acclimatization program with a time-based trigger, using a timer to sequence through settings based on elapsed operating time intervals.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sacha's time-based trigger with the Fichtl system as a common, alternative mechanism to Fichtl’s power-on trigger. This modification would address the potential for acclimatization to proceed too quickly or slowly if a user powers their device on and off at an unusual frequency. Using a timer provided a more consistent and predictable adjustment schedule.
- Expectation of Success: Implementing a timer for event sequencing was a well-known, routine, and predictable modification in the field of hearing aid programming.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Fichtl (Patent 8,787,603), Sacha (Application # 2003/0215105), Mangold (Patent 4,972,487), and DE19542961 (a German patent publication).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted the non-transitory computer-readable device claims. Petitioner contended that the combination of Fichtl and Mangold taught a memory storing instructions. The key addition of DE19542961 was to meet the limitation that the "pre-determined threshold is programmable by the user." DE19542961 was cited for its disclosure that a hearing aid user can directly adjust the timing of acclimatization steps through an "adjustment program."
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would modify the Fichtl/Sacha/Mangold system to include user-programmable thresholds as taught by DE19542961 to address a known disadvantage of prior devices: the inability to account for user preferences. Allowing a user to control the pace of acclimatization would ensure the adjustment process is not "too fast" or "too slow," thereby improving user satisfaction and device adoption.
- Expectation of Success: Providing user-programmable settings was a straightforward and common design choice to improve device usability, with a high expectation of success.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 19 based on a combination of Fichtl, Sacha, Mangold, Bisgaard, and DE19542961, relying on similar design modification theories.

"hearing aid profile": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a collection of acoustic configuration settings for a hearing aid which are used by a processor to shape acoustic signals to correct for a user’s hearing loss." This construction was argued to be compelled by the patent’s explicit definition provided in the specification.
"hearing correction filter": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "an adjustment applied by a processor to a hearing aid profile to reduce the level of correction provided to a user by application of the hearing aid profile." Petitioner argued this construction was critical, as the patent’s definition described the filter as being applied to the profile itself, not to an already-modulated electrical signal. This distinction was central to Petitioner’s argument that prior art like Fichtl, which adjusts parameter values (i.e., the profile), met the claim limitations.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 and 16-19 of Patent 8,654,999 as unpatentable.