PTAB

IPR2017-01927

GN Hearing AS v. Oticon AS

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Audio Device Comprising a Microphone
  • Brief Description: The ’204 patent relates to a hearing aid device designed to reduce wind noise by protecting the microphone sound inlets. The invention discloses shaping the inlets as elongated slits with a rounded exterior surface to reduce air turbulence and a sharp interior edge to promote water droplet formation, preventing water ingress.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Saltykov and Dodge - Claims 1-8 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 all major components of the challenged claims, including a microphone, external casing, and protective sound port covers designed to reduce wind noise. However, Saltykov’s sound openings were depicted as circular holes. Dodge, in the context of a telephone mouthpiece, taught using elongated slit openings with a smooth, curved outer surface and a sharp inner edge specifically to minimize the "windage effects of hissing and explosive sounds." The combination of Saltykov's hearing aid structure with Dodge's inlet geometry allegedly rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the known wind-noise reduction capabilities of Saltykov's hearing aid. Since Saltykov explicitly addressed wind noise as a problem for its directional microphones, a POSITA would have been motivated to replace its conventional hole-shaped openings with the specialized slit design from Dodge, which was taught to solve the same problem of noise generated by air movement.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. The combination involved applying a known noise-reduction technique (Dodge's slits) to a known device type (Saltykov's hearing aid) to achieve a predictable improvement in wind noise reduction within the well-understood field of audio acoustics.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sjursen and Mundel - Claims 1, 3-6, and 8 are obvious over Sjursen in view of Mundel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sjursen (WO 00/41432) and Mundel (J. of the Acoustical Soc. of Am., Jul. 1947).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Sjursen disclosed a disposable hearing aid designed to reduce wind noise by "flaring the outside and/or inside surfaces" of its microphone sound inlet holes. Critically, Sjursen taught that these inlet openings "may be of any convenient shape and number without limitation." Mundel, also directed to hearing aids, taught that a "recessed grille" (argued to be understood by a POSITA as slit openings) with rounded outer edges and sharp inner edges reduces background noise.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because Sjursen provided a general framework for noise-reducing inlets of any shape, while Mundel provided a specific, effective shape (slits with rounded edges) for the same purpose in the same device type. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Mundel's specific design in Sjursen's device to achieve the known noise-reduction benefits.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable. Both references taught that flared or rounded edges on hearing aid inlets reduce noise. Applying Mundel's specific slit shape to Sjursen’s system, which explicitly allowed for any shape, would be a straightforward design choice with a predictable outcome.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Sjursen, Mundel, and Dodge - Claims 2 and 7 are obvious over Sjursen in view of Mundel and Dodge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sjursen (WO 00/41432), Mundel (J. of the Acoustical Soc. of Am., Jul. 1947), and Dodge (Patent 1,664,852).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed the limitation in dependent claims 2 and 7 requiring the edge of the opening to have a cross-sectional angle of less than ninety degrees. Petitioner argued that while the Sjursen/Mundel combination taught rounded edges, it did not explicitly disclose an angle less than ninety degrees. Dodge, however, disclosed various edge cross-sections, including angles less than ninety degrees, to create a more gradual curve for superior reduction in wind turbulence.
    • Motivation to Combine: Having combined Sjursen and Mundel, a POSITA would have been motivated to further optimize the design for even greater noise reduction by incorporating Dodge's teaching on edge angles. The cross-sectional angle was presented as a result-effective variable that a POSITA would naturally tune. A more gradual curve (achieved with an angle <90°) was a known way to further reduce turbulence.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected because modifying the edge angle to be more acute is a form of routine optimization to enhance a known effect. The principle that a more gradual surface reduces turbulence was well-established, making the outcome of this modification predictable.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Slit opening" (claims 1-8): Petitioner argued this term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning as "a long, narrow opening or crack." This construction was asserted to be consistent with dictionary definitions and the patent's figures, and broad enough to encompass the slit-like "grille" in Mundel and the openings in Dodge.
  • "Protection screen" or "protective cover" (claims 1-8): Petitioner proposed this term includes any portion of the exterior housing that protects the sound entrances from wind and other environmental factors. This interpretation was crucial for arguing that the faceplate of Sjursen's hearing aid and the sound port covers in Saltykov met this claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 of Patent 8,494,204 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.