PTAB

IPR2017-00781

K/S HIMPP v. III HOLDINGS 4, LLC,

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Hearing Aid with Incremental Hearing Correction
  • Brief Description: The ’999 patent relates to a hearing aid that provides incremental or progressive hearing adjustments over time. This "acclimatization" process is designed to ease a new user's transition from an uncompensated hearing level to a fully-compensated level by applying a sequence of hearing correction filters.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5 and 16 are obvious over Fichtl in view of Mangold and Bisgaard.

  • 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 invention: a hearing aid with an "acclimatization algorithm" that incrementally increases hearing compensation over time using a sequence of adjustments, starting from an initial sub-optimal level (iPOV) and progressing toward a target level (tPOV). This taught applying a first filter and then a subsequent filter in response to a trigger (powering the device on). To the extent Fichtl did not explicitly disclose storing instructions in memory or selecting from a plurality of hearing profiles, Mangold taught these features in the context of hearing aids. For the limitation in claim 1 requiring an alert when the final correction filter is applied, Bisgaard disclosed an alarm system for its own acclimatization process to alert the user when the sequence is complete.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine these references because they all address the known problem of acclimatizing a user to a hearing aid. A POSA would have been motivated to modify Fichtl's system with Mangold's well-understood memory and profile selection features to enhance functionality. Similarly, incorporating Bisgaard’s audible alert into Fichtl’s system was a predictable solution to inform the user that the acclimatization process was complete, allowing them to assess the final compensation level.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known elements from the hearing aid field would have involved applying predictable solutions to known problems, yielding the predictable result of a more user-friendly and effective acclimatization system.

Ground 2: Claim 18 is obvious over Fichtl in view of Mangold, Bisgaard, and Sacha.

  • 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 Ground 1, adding Sacha to teach the specific limitations of claim 18. Claim 18 requires determining the amount of time a first filter is applied and applying a second filter when that time exceeds a pre-determined threshold. Petitioner asserted Sacha disclosed a time-based trigger for sequencing through acclimatization settings, using a timer to track the device's operating time and switch to the next parameter set after a specified interval has elapsed.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to add Sacha’s teachings to the Fichtl/Mangold/Bisgaard combination was to provide a more robust triggering mechanism. Fichtl’s power-on/off cycle trigger could be unreliable, causing acclimatization to proceed too quickly if the user frequently powers the device off and on, or too slowly if they do not. A POSA would recognize that using Sacha’s elapsed-time trigger is a common, alternative mechanism that provides more consistent and predictable control over the acclimatization timeline.

Ground 3: Claims 6-9 and 17 are obvious over Fichtl in view of Sacha, Mangold, and DE19542961.

  • 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 challenged claims related to a non-transitory computer-readable device and user-programmable thresholds. Petitioner argued that the combination of Fichtl and Mangold taught a memory storing instructions (a non-transitory device). The combination with Sacha taught time-based thresholds for advancing through correction filters. The key addition for this ground, DE961, was alleged to teach that the pre-determined time threshold can be programmable by the user. DE961 disclosed an adjustment program allowing the patient to choose a longer or slower time constant for the adjustment steps.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to incorporate the user-programmable timing from DE961 into the Fichtl/Sacha/Mangold system to address a known deficiency in prior art devices: the inability to account for individual user preferences. Allowing the user to control the pace of acclimatization, as taught by DE961, would ensure the program is not too fast or too slow for their comfort, improving the user experience and increasing the likelihood they will continue to use the hearing aid. This was a known method for improving user adoption.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) for claim 19 based on the combination of all five prior art references (Fichtl, Mangold, Bisgaard, Sacha, and DE961), arguing the claim was a combination of limitations already taught by the various references.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "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 based on an explicit definition provided in the ’999 patent 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 that the specification explicitly defined the filter as being applied to the profile itself, not to an electrical signal that has already been modulated by the profile. This distinction was critical to Petitioner's argument that Fichtl’s adjustment of audio processing parameters (APPs) met the claim limitations.

5. Relief Requested

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