PTAB

IPR2026-00144

Apple Inc v. IngenioSpec LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Hearing Enhancement System
  • Brief Description: The ’789 patent relates to a hearing enhancement system. The technology involves receiving input audio signals, wirelessly transmitting them to a device that modifies the signals based on a user's hearing characteristics, and then generating audio output signals for the user, potentially with higher power at specific frequencies.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Anderson - Claims 1-6, 8, 11-14, 19-20, 22-24, 27-31, 33-36, 39-50, 52-58, 60-68, 70-72, 75, 77-79, 81-82 are obvious over Anderson

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderson (Patent 5,721,783).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Anderson, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims, particularly independent claim 1. Anderson describes a hearing aid system with an earpiece and a separate remote processor unit (RPU). Petitioner asserted that Anderson’s earpiece microphone functions as the claimed "audio system" for receiving input signals. These signals are up-converted and wirelessly transmitted to the RPU, which acts as the claimed "wireless receiver." The RPU’s IF mixer serves as a "down-converter," and its digital signal processor (DSP) functions as a "modifier" that enhances signals to compensate for the user's hearing loss, a stored "hearing characteristic." The modified signals are then transmitted back to the earpiece "speaker" to generate audio for the user. Petitioner mapped Anderson's disclosures to numerous dependent claims, including those reciting WiFi frequency bands, use with a phone, and user calibration via hearing tests.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Anderson and Enzmann - Claims 7 and 15-18 are obvious over Anderson in view of Enzmann

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderson (Patent 5,721,783), Enzmann (Patent 7,245,730).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Anderson by adding Enzmann to teach the specific limitation of claim 7, wherein a "higher frequency portion" of the audio signal has "increased power." Petitioner contended that Anderson teaches adjusting audio gain based on frequency but does not explicitly disclose boosting higher frequencies. Enzmann, however, directly addresses this by teaching the use of pre-stored "dynamic frequency maps" to amplify signals differently across frequencies, providing an example where a user with high-frequency hearing loss receives greater amplification in those higher frequencies.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Enzmann’s frequency-correction approach with Anderson's system to improve performance for users with common high-frequency hearing loss. Incorporating Enzmann’s targeted amplification would provide more effective and tailored hearing enhancement than Anderson’s general system alone.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued for a reasonable expectation of success because Enzmann’s techniques were well-known and its signal amplification was implemented via a DSP, analogous to the DSP in Anderson's RPU. The systems shared compatible components, making the combination straightforward.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Anderson and Mayer - Claims 9, 10, 21, 26, 51, and 59 are obvious over Anderson in view of Mayer

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderson (Patent 5,721,783), Mayer (Application # 2004/0170086).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Mayer to teach the limitations of claim 9 (generating "ultrasonic signals") and claim 10 (a "directional speaker"). Petitioner asserted that Mayer discloses a membrane-less speaker that generates high-frequency ultrasonic signals that interfere in the air to create audible sound, meeting the claim 9 limitation. Mayer further taught that its speakers can be made directional by using a parabolic reflector, satisfying the claim 10 limitation. Claim 51's requirement for a "directional microphone" was also allegedly met by Mayer's disclosure that its microphone is "naturally at least partially directional."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Anderson and Mayer to overcome the known problem of distortion in conventional speakers, as identified by Mayer. Replacing Anderson’s speaker with Mayer’s low-distortion, directional speaker would produce clearer audio, improve acoustic efficiency by focusing sound toward the user’s ear, and reduce feedback into the system's microphone.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Mayer’s speakers and microphones are broadly applicable to audio reproduction systems like Anderson's hearing aid. Mayer’s technology is described as very compact, making it compatible with an earpiece design.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 32 and 37 are obvious over Anderson in view of Gabara (Patent 7,024,000) for teaching periodic reminders to recalibrate a hearing aid, and that claim 76 is obvious over Anderson in view of Rader (Patent 6,944,474) for teaching audio modification based on a user's subjective preference profile.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-24, 26-37, 39-68, 70-72, 75-79, and 81-82 of the ’789 patent as unpatentable.