PTAB

IPR2017-01926

GN Hearing AS v. Oticon AS

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Audio Device Comprising a Microphone
  • Brief Description: The ’621 patent discloses an audio device, such as a hearing aid, featuring sound inlets designed to reduce wind noise. The invention centers on slit-formed openings having a rounded exterior surface to minimize air turbulence and a sharp interior edge to promote water droplet formation, preventing moisture ingress.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Saltykov and Dodge - Claims 1-10 are obvious over Saltykov in view of Dodge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Saltykov (Patent 7,245,733) and Dodge (Patent 1,664,852).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Saltykov disclosed a hearing aid with a protective screen and sound ports designed to mitigate wind noise, but its openings were depicted as simple holes. Dodge, in contrast, taught a telephone mouthpiece with slit-formed openings that featured a smooth, curved outer surface and a sharp inner edge, a configuration explicitly stated to minimize "windage effects." This combination allegedly taught every element of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Dodge’s advanced slit-formed opening design with Saltykov’s hearing aid. Saltykov’s use of directional microphones, known to be susceptible to wind noise, provided a strong reason to seek improved noise-reduction features. Dodge offered a known solution from the analogous field of audio devices to solve this precise problem.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known solution (Dodge's noise-reducing slits) to a known problem (wind noise in Saltykov's hearing aid) to achieve the predictable result of improved wind noise performance.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sjursen and Mundel - Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9 are obvious over Sjursen in view of Mundel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sjursen (WO 00/41432) and Mundel (a 1947 journal article).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Sjursen taught a disposable hearing aid with inlet holes that could be of "any convenient shape" and disclosed that "flaring" the outer surfaces reduced wind noise. Mundel specifically taught a hearing aid with a recessed grille composed of slit-formed openings, demonstrating that rounded outer edges combined with sharp inner edges effectively reduced noise.
    • Motivation to Combine: Since Sjursen allowed for any opening shape, a POSITA would have been motivated to adopt the specific slit-formed geometry from Mundel. Both references were directed to hearing aids and addressed the same problem of noise reduction, making Mundel’s teachings a natural and logical improvement to Sjursen’s design.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as yielding predictable results. A POSITA would expect that incorporating Mundel’s proven noise-reducing slit design into Sjursen’s hearing aid would successfully reduce noise, as both references taught the efficacy of rounded/flared external openings for this purpose.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges against claims 3, 7, 8, and 10 by augmenting the Sjursen and Mundel combination. Saltykov was added to provide the directional hearing aid features recited in claims 3, 7, and 8 (e.g., two canals, spatially separated microphone openings). For claim 10, Dodge was added to the Sjursen/Mundel combination to render obvious the specific sharp-edge radius of curvature (≤0.05 mm) through routine design optimization.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Slit-formed opening" (claims 1-10): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "an opening formed as a slit," further defined by its dictionary meaning as "a long, narrow opening or crack." This construction was central to mapping prior art like Dodge and Mundel, which disclosed long, narrow openings rather than round holes.
  • "Sharp edge" (claims 1-9): Petitioner argued that this term rendered the claims indefinite but provided a proposed construction for the purpose of the petition. It proposed that "sharp edge" be interpreted in contrast to the claimed "smooth and gradual, curve" of the first surface, meaning "the meeting of two surfaces that is not a smooth, gradual curve." This construction was critical for showing how the prior art met the claimed geometry where the rounded outer surface transitions to a non-rounded inner surface.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-10 of Patent 7,894,621 as unpatentable.