throbber
IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`
`Docket No.: 2212665-00120US8
`Filed on behalf of K/S HIMPP
`By: Donald R. Steinberg, Reg. No. 37,241
`Haixia Lin, Reg. No. 61,318
`Christopher R. O’Brien, Reg. No. 63,208
`Vera A. Shmidt, Reg. No. 74,944
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Email: Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
` Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
` Haixia.Lin@wilmerhale.com
` Christopher.O’Brien@wilmerhale.com
`Vera.Shmidt@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`K/S HIMPP
`Petitioner
`v.
`III Holdings 4 LLC
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`Case IPR2017-00782
`Patent No. 8,654,999
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Claim 10 is Obvious over the Cited References .............................................. 1 
`A. 
`Fichtl discloses generating a “sequence of incremental hearing
`correction filters” ................................................................................... 2 
`IV adopts an overly narrow interpretation of “hearing correction
`filter” ...................................................................................................... 4 
`Fichtl discloses “hearing correction filters” even under IV’s overly
`narrow interpretation ............................................................................. 8 
`IV adopts an overly narrow interpretation of a “sequence of
`incremental hearing correction filters” ................................................ 10 
`Fichtl discloses a “sequence of incremental hearing correction filters”
`even under IV’s overly narrow interpretation ..................................... 11 
`III.  Claims 11, 13-15, and 20 are Obvious over the Cited References ................ 14 
`IV.  Dr. Atlas’ Opinions are Based on Factual Evidence ..................................... 14 
`V. 
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 16 
`
`
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In its Decision on Institution, the Board recognized that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the challenged claims 10, 11, 13-15, and 20 should be cancelled.
`
`IPR2017-00782 Decision on Institution (“DI”) at 33. None of the arguments raised
`
`by the Patent Owner III Holdings 4, LLC (hereinafter “IV”) provides any reason to
`
`alter the determination of the Board in the DI.
`
`IV argues that the cited references fail to teach particular claim terms by first
`
`adopting overly narrow interpretations of the terms, then mischaracterizing the
`
`disclosure of U.S. Patent No. 8,787,603 (“Fichtl”) to argue that it fails to disclose
`
`these terms under IV’s narrow interpretation. IV’s claim interpretations are
`
`unsupported by the specification, file history, or the claims themselves.
`
`Furthermore, even under IV’s narrow interpretations, Fichtl, in view of the other
`
`cited references, would still render the claims obvious.
`
`II. CLAIM 10 IS OBVIOUS OVER THE CITED REFERENCES
`IV argues that Fichtl fails to disclose a “sequence of incremental hearing
`
`correction filters,” as recited in claim 10. However, as discussed below, IV relies
`
`on unsupported and incorrect narrow interpretations of these terms. Even under
`
`IV’s narrow interpretations of the claims, Fichtl would still disclose these terms.
`
`1
`
`

`

`A.
`
`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`Fichtl discloses generating a “sequence of incremental hearing
`correction filters”
`Fichtl discloses executing an acclimatization algorithm where the amount of
`
`compensation for the user’s hearing loss increases over time. Fichtl, Ex. 1103 at
`
`Abstract (“The intensity of the hearing device is increased in the long term”), 3:32-
`
`34 (“controller 6 is adapted to execute an acclimatization algorithm . . .”), 4:25-26
`
`(“acclimatization process is controlled by software being executed on the
`
`controller 6”). As represented by the curve marked “X” plotted on the graph
`
`depicted in Fig. 2, the acclimatization algorithm increases the value of an audio
`
`processing parameter (APP) over time. Id. at Fig. 2, 3:35-36 (“FIG. 2 shows how
`
`an audio processing parameter APP is changed over time in a hearing device 1”),
`
`3:42-4:15, 4:25-67. In particular, an intermediate value X is slowly increased
`
`while the hearing aid is on, then held constant in memory while the hearing aid is
`
`off, such that each time the hearing aid is turned on, APP is set to the last value for
`
`X as stored in memory. Id. at Fig. 2, 3:55-57, 3:66-4:7, 4:31-36, 4:41-53.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1103, Fig. 2
`
`
`
`As shown in Fig. 2, APP starts at an initial power-on value (iPOV) selected to
`
`provide a smaller degree of compensation than the target power-on value (tPOV),
`
`which is the value for APP corresponding to the selected hearing aid profile that
`
`compensates for the user’s hearing impairment. Id. at Fig. 2, 3:42-48 (“At time
`
`‘A,’ a fitter programs an initial power-on value iPOV for the audio processing
`
`parameter as well as a target power-on value tPOV…The target power-on value
`
`tPOV is, for example, 10 dB higher than the initial power-on value iPOV”),
`
`Abstract (“An initial power-on value (iPOV) and a target power-on value (tPOV),
`
`which is to be reached at the end (H) of the acclimatization phase, may be
`
`programmed by an audiologist.”), 3:49-4:24, 4:25-67. The compensation increases
`
`to each of a sequence of replacement power-on-values (e.g., rPOV1, rPOV2, . . .)
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`each time the hearing aid is turned on until it reaches tPOV. Id. Fichtl discloses a
`
`processor that uses APP values provided by a controller, including iPOV, rPOV1,
`
`rPOV2, etc., generated by the acclimatization algorithm, to process sounds for a
`
`hearing device user. Id. at Figs. 1-2, 3:23-34. Thus, Fichtl’s acclimatization
`
`algorithm corresponds to adjustments applied by the controller to the collection of
`
`APPs of the processor to reduce the level of correction provided to the hearing
`
`device user by application of the hearing aid profile. In other words, Fichtl’s
`
`acclimatization algorithm as executed by the controller generates a sequence of
`
`“hearing correction filters.”
`
`In one embodiment of Fichtl, after the initial APP value (iPOV) is
`
`implemented when a user first turns on the hearing aid, the algorithm is executed
`
`and a second APP value is stored as a replacement power-on-value (rPOV1) when
`
`the hearing aid is turned off. Id. at Fig. 2, 3:66-4:4; see also id. at 5:11-41. This
`
`second APP value (rPOV1) corresponds to a second in a sequence of incremental
`
`hearing correction filters and is designated to follow the initial APP value (iPOV),
`
`corresponding to a first in a sequence of incremental hearing correction filters. Id.
`
`at Fig. 2, 3:66-4:7, 4:31-36, 4:41-53.
`
`B.
`
`IV adopts an overly narrow interpretation of “hearing correction
`filter”
`The Board adopted the following construction for “hearing correction filter”:
`
`“a filter that is applied by a processor within a hearing aid to a hearing aid profile
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`to reduce the level of correction provided to the user by application of the hearing
`
`aid profile.” DI at 9. IV disagrees with the Board’s construction, reiterating its
`
`argument from its preliminary response that the construction of the term “hearing
`
`correction filter,” as recited in claim 10, should be narrowed to require a
`
`“collection of filters.” IPR2017-00782 Patent Owner Response (“POR”) at 14.
`
`However, the Board already correctly rejected this construction. DI at 8-9. The
`
`term “hearing correction filter” does not require a “collection of filters.”
`
`IV argues that the specification expressly defines this term as a “collection
`
`of filters.” POR at 14. However, the specification does not state that a “hearing
`
`correction filter” is itself a collection of filters, merely that it “refers to” (i.e.,
`
`alludes to) such a collection. ’999 patent, Ex. 1101, 2:65-66. Namely, as
`
`acknowledged in the DI, each filter in the collection is applied sequentially over a
`
`period of time to provide incremental corrections for a user’s hearing loss. Id.,
`
`2:65-3:7 (“As used herein, the term “hearing correction filter” refers to a
`
`collection of filters . . . . The collection of hearing correction filters may include a
`
`series of hearing correction adjustments designed to be applied in a sequence over
`
`a period of time to provide incremental corrections for the user's hearing
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`loss . . .”); see also DI at 8.1 None of the other portions of the specification cited
`
`by IV support requiring a single hearing correction filter to itself be a collection of
`
`filters. In particular, the specification notes that “the filter or correction used to
`
`achieve the correction lines and ultimately the hearing aid profile is composed of a
`
`plurality of coefficients, parameters, or other settings.” ’999 patent, Ex. 1101,
`
`5:42-48. This portion merely states that a filter or correction includes multiple
`
`settings, but fails to require that a hearing correction filter must be a collection of
`
`filters. Thus, a “hearing correction filter” is not required to be a “collection of
`
`filters” as IV proposes.
`
`IV also appears to interpret the term “hearing correction filter” to require a
`
`mechanism that “change[s] frequency characteristics of the underlying audio
`
`signal” (POR at 24) and “impacts different frequencies of the signal in different
`
`ways” (POR at 25-26) because the specification discloses an “illustrated example”
`
`that “adjust[s] selected frequencies to the desired hearing level while providing less
`
`of an enhancement to other frequencies.” ’999 patent, Ex. 1101, 4:35-39. IV’s
`
`expert acknowledges that he adopts this narrow view of the term “hearing
`
`correction filter.” Brown Tr., Ex. 1116, 48:17-22 (agreeing that his opinion is that
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Emphasis added throughout this Reply unless otherwise indicated.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`“a hearing correction filter has to provide a varying effect on different frequencies
`
`of a signal”). This interpretation is incorrect.
`
`First, these requirements are absent from IV’s own proposed construction of
`
`the term “hearing correction filter.” As IV’s expert acknowledges, a filter can treat
`
`all frequencies equally. Brown Tr., Ex. 1116, 21:8-25. Thus, a collection of
`
`filters, as recited in IV’s construction, could adjust all frequencies equally and need
`
`not necessarily impact different frequencies in different ways.
`
`Second, there is no indication in the specification or file history that the
`
`patentee intended to disclaim any hearing correction filter that did not apply
`
`adjustments that varied across frequencies. As noted above, IV’s requirements
`
`appear to be based solely on a mere “illustrated example” disclosed in the
`
`specification. ’999 patent, Ex. 1101, 4:35-39; see also id., 4:39-40 (“However, it
`
`should be understood that other incremental hearing corrections could be used.”)
`
`Third, these requirements are contrary to the specification, which further
`
`discloses that in another example, “the incremental hearing correction could
`
`dampen or otherwise apply filters to the selected hearing aid profile to
`
`incrementally adjust the hearing correction across the entire range of frequencies
`
`substantially evenly.” Id., 4:40-44. In other words, the ’999 patent discloses that a
`
`hearing correction filter could dampen the selected hearing aid profile across the
`
`entire range of frequencies substantially evenly, rather than having a varying effect
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`on different frequencies. IV’s expert acknowledges that his view of the term
`
`“hearing correction filter” would not cover this example from the specification.
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1116, 48:24-49:3 (describing a hearing correction filter that
`
`“evenly dampen[s] the entire range of frequencies” as “not [] logical”).
`
`Thus, there is no requirement that a “hearing correction filter” must impact
`
`different frequencies of the signal in different ways, as IV alleges.
`
`C.
`
`Fichtl discloses “hearing correction filters” even under IV’s overly
`narrow interpretation
`IV argues that Fichtl fails to disclose a “hearing correction filter” by first
`
`mischaracterizing Fichtl as only disclosing incremental volume adjustments, then
`
`arguing that a volume adjustment does not meet IV’s overly narrow interpretation
`
`of the term. Namely, IV argues that a volume adjustment is not implemented by a
`
`collection of filters and does not change frequency characteristics of an audio
`
`signal. POR at 24-27.
`
`First, even if Fichtl only disclosed volume adjustments as IV alleges, Fichtl
`
`would still disclose a “hearing correction filter,” as recited in claim 10. IV argues
`
`that a volume adjustment “adjust[s] the amplitude across all frequencies of the
`
`signal.” POR at 26. For example, IV’s expert describes evenly dampening the
`
`entire range of frequencies as a volume adjustment. Brown Tr., Ex. 1116, 48:24-
`
`49:3. Like this volume adjustment, the ’999 patent discloses that a hearing
`
`correction filter could dampen across the entire range of frequencies substantially
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`evenly. ’999 patent, Ex. 1101, 4:40-44; see also Brown Tr., Ex. 1116, 21:8-25
`
`(acknowledging it was known that a filter could treat all frequencies equally).
`
`Thus, a volume adjustment is one type of “hearing correction filter.”
`
`Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`a volume adjustment may comprise a vector of volume values, each associated
`
`with the loudness of a different frequency band. Atlas Tr., Ex. 2105, 42:3-10. As
`
`IV’s expert agreed, it was known in the art before the ’999 patent that hearing aids
`
`included filter coefficients, including a coefficient for each frequency band for
`
`changing its level of attenuation, or loudness. Brown Tr. Ex. 1116, 22:2-23:8.
`
`Thus, a vector volume adjustment would correspond to a collection of filters,
`
`capable of impacting different frequencies in a different way. A volume
`
`adjustment is therefore a “hearing correction filter,” even under IV’s overly narrow
`
`view of the term.
`
`Second, Fichtl discloses adjustments other than volume that also constitute
`
`“hearing correction filters,” as recited in claim 10, even under IV’s narrow view of
`
`this term. As discussed in the Petition, Fichtl discloses hearing correction filters
`
`corresponding to power-on values iPOV, rPOV1, rPOV2, etc. for audio processing
`
`parameters (APP). IPR2017-00782 Petition (“Petition”) at 27-31. Fichtl discloses
`
`that APP may be volume “but may also be something else, as, for example, treble
`
`or noise canceling.” Fichtl, Ex. 1103, 3:44-47. Thus, APP may include multiple
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`parameters, not just a single volume adjustment, where those parameters may
`
`correspond to filters and impact different frequencies in different ways. For
`
`example, treble adjustments are adjustments to a set of higher frequencies. Brown
`
`Tr., Ex. 1116, 20:11-16. Adjusting some frequencies, such as a set of higher
`
`frequencies, more than others could be accomplished via a filter. Id., 18:18-23; see
`
`also id., 17:20-25. In fact, IV’s expert agrees that adjusting a set of higher
`
`frequencies constitutes a “hearing correction filter.” Id., 54:24-55:8. In another
`
`example, noise canceling could adjust some frequency bands, that are mostly
`
`noise, to be lower, and other frequency bands, that are mostly speech, to be higher.
`
`Atlas Tr., Ex. 2105, 87:12-23. Thus, Fichtl discloses power-on values for APP that
`
`each correspond to a collection of filters and may adjust selected frequencies more
`
`than others, as required by IV’s interpretation of “hearing correction filter.”
`
`D.
`
`IV adopts an overly narrow interpretation of a “sequence of
`incremental hearing correction filters”
`IV argues that hearing correction filters only form a “sequence,” as recited in
`
`claim 10, if the filters are determined in advance or predictable. POR 29-30.
`
`However, this interpretation is contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`term “sequence,” which merely requires the following of one hearing correction
`
`filter after another. Webster’s New College Dictionary 2007, Ex. 1117, 1308
`
`(defining “sequence” to be “the following of one thing after another in
`
`chronological, causal, or logical order”). As acknowledged by IV’s expert, there
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`is no special meaning for the term “sequence” in the field of hearing aids. Brown
`
`Tr., Ex. 1116, 61:15-17. Futhermore, there is no indication in the specification or
`
`file history that the patentee intended to limit the term “sequence” as IV proposes
`
`or to disclaim any sequence of hearing correction filters that are not determined in
`
`advance or predictable. Thus, IV’s narrow interpretation of “sequence” should be
`
`rejected.2
`
`E.
`
`Fichtl discloses a “sequence of incremental hearing correction
`filters” even under IV’s overly narrow interpretation
`IV argues that Fichtl’s hearing correction filters do not form a “sequence” as
`
`
`
` 2
`
` IV briefly argues in a footnote that Fichtl fails to disclose “generating a
`
`sequence” of hearing correction filters because Fichtl’s algorithm is allegedly
`
`“based on a single stored value.” POR at 29, n. 6. First, Fichtl’s algorithm can be
`
`based on more than a single scalar value. See Fichtl, Ex. 1103, 3:44-47 (“The
`
`audio processing parameter APP is typically volume but may also be something
`
`else, as, for example, treble or noise canceling.”); Atlas Tr., Ex. 2105, 125:12-16
`
`(“a power on value could be a set of filters that represent compensation and
`
`frequency, a set of -- a matrix that was inverted to represent covariance values for
`
`noise reduction”). Second, Fichtl discloses generating each hearing correction
`
`filter of the sequence. Petition at 27-31.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`recited in claim 10 because they correspond to a running average of values based
`
`on user inputs. POR at 29-31. However, IV agrees that Fichtl’s hearing correction
`
`filters occur gradually over time. Id. at 31. Thus, they occur sequentially, forming
`
`a “sequence,” as recited in claim 10. In particular, each power-on value (POV)
`
`follows one after another in time, where each POV corresponds to a hearing
`
`correction filter. See Webster’s New College Dictionary 2007, Ex. 1117, 1308
`
`(defining “sequence” to be “the following of one thing after another in
`
`chronological, causal, or logical order”). For example, as IV’s expert agrees, the
`
`first replacement power-on value (rPOV1) occurs later in time and is subsequent to
`
`the initial power-on value (iPOV), and the second replacement power-on value
`
`(rPOV2) occurs later in time and is subsequent to rPOV1. Brown Tr., Ex. 1116,
`
`60:2-25; see also Fichtl, Ex. 1103, Fig. 2, 3:42-4:15, 4:25-53. In fact, IV’s expert
`
`agrees that iPOV, rPOV1, and rPOV2 form a “sequence” under his understanding of
`
`that term. Brown Tr., Ex. 1116, 61:1-11.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1103, Fig. 2
`
`
`
`Thus, Fichtl discloses a “sequence” of hearing correction filters.
`
`Furthermore, even assuming that the hearing correction filters must be
`
`determined in advance to form a “sequence,” as IV requires, Fichtl discloses such
`
`hearing correction filters. The power-on values are determined in advance, before
`
`they are applied. For example, in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 2, iPOV is
`
`programmed at time A before it is applied at time B. Fichtl, Ex. 1103, 3:42-53,
`
`Fig. 2; POR at 20. Then rPOV1 is determined at time F before it is applied at time
`
`G. Fichtl, Ex. 1103, 3:66-4:7, Fig. 2; POR at 20-21; see also Brown Tr., Ex. 1116,
`
`66:7-14. In another example, Fichtl discloses an acclimatization algorithm which
`
`“does not take into account user inputs,” as its hearing correction filters are
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`“independent of how the audio processing parameter APP was adjusted by the
`
`hearing device user.” Fichtl, Ex. 1103, 5:11-16; see also id., 5:16-41, Fig. 3.
`
`Thus, Fichtl discloses a “sequence” of hearing correction filters, even under
`
`IV’s overly narrow interpretation of the term.
`
`III. CLAIMS 11, 13-15, AND 20 ARE OBVIOUS OVER THE CITED
`REFERENCES
`IV argues dependent claims 11, 13-15, and 20 should be patentable based on
`
`the limitations discussed above with respect to claim 10, from which they depend.
`
`POR at 31-32. Thus, for the reasons dicussed in section II above, these claims are
`
`obvious over the cited references as instituted in the DI.
`
`IV. DR. ATLAS’ OPINIONS ARE BASED ON FACTUAL EVIDENCE
`
`The petition discussed the specific factual evidence that Dr. Atlas provided
`
`in his declaration to support the invalidity analysis. In response, IV cites to a
`
`number of cases in which the Board rejected mere conclusory statements included
`
`in a declaration, without any supporting factual evidence, and requests the Board to
`
`give Dr. Atlas’s testimony little to no weight. See POR at 32-34. IV’s argument is
`
`meritless.
`
`The simple fact that the petition and Dr. Atlas’ declaration are similar is not
`
`the probative factor in whether Dr. Atlas’ declaration should be given little or no
`
`weight. The cases relied upon by IV are cases in which the declaration was not
`
`based on any factual evidence in reaching its conclusory statements. For instance,
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`Patent Owner’s Response cited Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemer Manufacturing LLC.,
`
`IPR2015-01704, Paper No. 11, Decision Denying Institution at 6 (PTAB Feb. 16,
`
`2016) to support its position. POR at 32. However, Infobionic specifically noted
`
`that “[w]e do not find the testimony of Petitioner’s expert to be persuasive or
`
`helpful as it repeats the Petitioner’s arguments and offers little or no elaboration as
`
`to how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term ‘subset.’”
`
`Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemer Manufacturing LLC., IPR2015-01704, Paper No. 11,
`
`Decision Denying Institution at 6 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2016). Thus, in Infobionic, the
`
`Board gave the expert’s declaration little weight, not because the declaration
`
`repeats the Petitioner’s arguments, but because the declaration offers no factual
`
`evidence regarding the meaning of “subset.” In fact, in reaching their decisions, all
`
`the cases cited in the POR at pp. 32-34 directly relied on 37 CFR §42.65(a), which
`
`states that “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data
`
`on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” See, e.g.,
`
`Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemer Manufacturing LLC., IPR2015-01704, Paper No. 11,
`
`Decision Denying Institution at 6, 15 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2016); CaptionCall LLC, et.
`
`al. v Ultratec, Inc., IPR2015-00637, Paper No. 98, Final Written Decision at 54, 66
`
`(PTAB Sept. 7, 2016); Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00529, Paper No. 8, Decision Denying Institution at 14 (PTAB Sept. 23,
`
`2014); and Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2016-01461, Paper No.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`
`9, Decision Denying Institution at 10 (Feb. 13, 2017).
`
`Here, in sharp contrast, both Dr. Atlas’ declaration and the petition provide
`
`the underlying factual evidence. The Board has stated that in such cases an
`
`Expert’s declaration should be given weight. See, e.g., Silicon Laboratories, Inc.
`
`vs. Cresta Technology Corporation, Case IPR2014-00881, Paper No. 9, Decision
`
`of Institution at p. 14 (October 24, 2014) (“The Declaration is not discredited
`
`because it repeats the Petition. … the Declaration cites to the portion of Gomez
`
`explicitly disclosing that tunable filter 311 is a band pass filter…. For that reason,
`
`the Declaration adequately discloses the facts and data underlying the opinion that
`
`Gomez discloses a band pass filter.”); p. 16 (“repetition of the Petition, without
`
`more, does not discredit the Declaration.”). In this Petition, both Dr. Atlas’
`
`declaration and the petition provide the underlying factual evidence. For example,
`
`Dr. Atlas provides citations to Fichtl in arriving at the conclusion that the cited
`
`references teach a sequence of hearing correction filters. Atlas Decl., Ex. 1108, ¶¶
`
`190-194. Accordingly, there is no reason why the Board should disregard Dr.
`
`Atlas’ declaration.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`The Board correctly instituted inter partes review, finding a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the claims should be cancelled based on the Petition and the
`
`supporting declaration. Nothing that IV has submitted alters those conclusions.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`Based on the foregoing, Petitioners request cancellation of the challenged claims
`
`10, 11, 13-15, and 20.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`K/S HIMPP, Petitioner
`
`By: /Donald R Steinberg/
`Donald R. Steinberg
`Registration No. 37,241
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering
`Hale & Dorr LLP
`Tel: 617-526-6453
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1101 U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999 B2 to Mindlin
`1102
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999 B2 to Mindlin
`1103 U.S. Patent No. 8,787,603 to Fichtl, et al.
`1104 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0215105 to Sacha
`1105 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2105/0036637 to Janssen
`1106 U.S. Patent No. 6,741,712 to Bisgaard
`1107 U.S. Patent No. 4,972,487 to Mangold
`1108 Declaration of Dr. Les Atlas
`1109 German patent publication DE19542961 with certified translation
`1110 U.S. Patent No. 7,933,419 to Roeck
`1111 Michael Valente, “Guideline for Audiologic Management of the
`Adult Patient”
`1112 Good Practice Guidance for Adult Hearing Aid Fittings and
`Services – Background to the Document and Consultation
`1113 Keidser et al., “Variation in preferred gain with experience for
`hearing-aid user”
`1114 Dillon et al., “The trainable hearing aid: What will it do for clients
`and clinicians?”
`1115 German patent publication DE19542961 with certified translation
`(not filed)
`1116 Deposition transcript of Mr. Brown, February 1, 2018
`1117 Webster’s New College Dictionary 2007 (excerpt)
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`document, excluding the portions exempted under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c), contains
`
`3423 words according to Microsoft Word.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Haixia Lin/
`Haixia Lin
`Reg. No. 61,318
`
`Dated: February 12, 2018
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on February 12, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy
`of the foregoing materials:
`
`• Petitioner’s Reply
`
`• Exhibits 1116-1117
`
`• Table of Exhibits
`
`• Certificate of Word Count
`
`to be served electronically via e-mail on February 12, 2018 to the following:
`
`Henry A. Petri, Jr., (Lead Counsel Reg. No. 33,063)
`hpetri@polsinelli.com
`
`James P. Murphy (Back-up Counsel Reg. No. 55,474)
`jpmurphy@polsinelli.com
`
`Margaux A. Savee (Back-up Counsel Reg. No. 62,940)
`msavee@polsinelli.com
`
`Tim R. Seeley (Back-up Counsel Reg. No. 53,575)
`tims@intven.com
`
`Russ Rigby (Back-up Counsel Reg. No. 50,267)
`rrigby@intven.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Haixia Lin/
`Haixia Lin
`Reg. No. 61,318
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket