Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: July 27, 2017
`
`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 8,654,999 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`KIMBERLY MCGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: July 27, 2017
`
`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 8,654,999 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`KIMBERLY MCGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`K/S HIMPP (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) to institute
`an inter partes review of claims 10–15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’999 patent”). Petitioner indicates that GN Hearing A/S
`(formerly GN Resound A/S), GN Store Nord A/S, IntriCon Corporation,
`Sivantos GmbH, Sivantos Inc., Sonova Holding AG, Sonova AG (formerly
`Phonak AG), Starkey Laboratories, Inc. (aka Starkey Hearing
`Technologies), Widex A/S, and William Demant Holding A/S are real
`parties in interest. Pet. 1. III Holdings 4, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the
`Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
`with respect to claims 10, 11, 13–15 and 20, but not claim 12. Accordingly,
`we institute an inter partes review of claims 10, 11, 13–15 and 20 of the
`’999 patent.
`
`B. Related Matter
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–9 and 16–19 of the ’999 patent in K/S
`HIMPP v. III Holdings 4, LLC, Case IPR2017-00781 (PTAB). Pet. 2.
`
`
`C. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`July 22, 2014
`
`Ex. 1103 (“Fichtl”)
`US 8,787,603 B2
`(filed June 19, 2012)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1104 (“Sacha”)
`US 2003/0215105 A1 Nov. 20, 2003
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`Nov. 20, 1990
`
`Ex. 1107 (“Mangold”) US 4,972,487
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D. (Ex. 1108,
`“Atlas Decl.”).1
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 5):
`References
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Fichtl and Mangold
`§ 103(a)
`10, 13, 14, and 20
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`11, 12, and 15
`
`Fichtl, Mangold, and Sacha
`
`E. The ’999 Patent
`The ’999 patent describes a hearing aid system. By way of
`background, the ’999 patent explains that an individual’s hearing loss can
`vary across audio frequencies and that an audiologist typically measures the
`individual’s hearing capacities in various environments and tunes or
`calibrates a hearing aid for the individual to compensate for that individual’s
`particular hearing loss. Ex. 1101, 1:46–55. The patent further notes that the
`abrupt transition to a hearing aid can be traumatic or distressful for the
`individual. Id. at 1:58–67. To address this, the ’999 patent describes a
`hearing aid system in which, “rather than abruptly implementing the hearing
`
`
`1 Patent Owner argues that we should give Dr. Atlas’s declaration no weight
`because it merely repeats the arguments in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 15–
`17. Although we evaluate the extent to which expert testimony discloses the
`underlying facts or data on which it is based to determine the weight to give
`that testimony, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), Patent Owner does not persuade us
`at this stage that any of Dr. Atlas’s testimony should be discounted entirely.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`correction for the user immediately, the hearing aid progressively applies
`incremental adjustments to progressively or gradually adjust the user’s
`experience from an uncompensated hearing level to a fully compensated
`hearing level.” Id. at 2:30–34.
`Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates an example:
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram of a hearing aid system. Id. at 2:10–12. Hearing
`aid 202 and computing device 252 (e.g., a personal digital assistant (PDA) or
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`smart phone), communicate using transceivers 216 and 264, through a wired
`or wireless channel (e.g., a Bluetooth channel or network 230). Id. at 5:49–
`61, 6:3–16. Hearing aid 202 includes memory 204 and processor 210 to
`store and process hearing aid profiles 218 and hearing correction filters 220.
`Id. at 5:61–6:2. Computing device 252 includes memory 254 and processor
`260 for storing and processing hearing aid profiles 270 and hearing
`correction filters 272. Id. at 6:29–35.
`Processor 210 of hearing aid 202 shapes acoustic signals according to
`a “hearing aid profile,” which the patent explains is “a collection of acoustic
`configuration settings,” and provides the shaped acoustic signals to a speaker
`or bone conduction element to correct a user’s hearing loss. Id. at 2:40–46.
`In one embodiment, processor 210 applies a “collection of hearing
`correction filters” that “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 loss.” Id. at 3:2–7. For
`example, “a first hearing correction filter attenuates the hearing aid profile
`by a pre-determined amount” and “[e]ach of subsequent hearing correction
`filter in the sequence increases the correction provided by (decreases the
`attenuation applied to) the hearing aid profile to some degree, until the
`sequence is complete and the hearing aid profile is fully applied to provide
`the desired hearing correction for the user.” Id. at 3:7–15.
`In one embodiment, processor 210 of hearing aid 202 selectively
`applies a hearing correction filter 220 to selected hearing aid profile 218 to
`provide hearing correction for a period of time before advancing to a next
`incremental hearing correction filter 220 in a sequence. Id. at 6:42–52. In
`another embodiment, hearing aid 202 receives a trigger from computing
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`device 252 through the communication channel and selects a filter from
`hearing correction filters 222 for application to a selected hearing aid profile
`218. Id. at 7:9–16. In some instances, hearing aid 202 can signal computing
`device 252 to retrieve an incremental hearing correction filter 276 from
`memory 254. Id. at 9:62–65.
`Claim 10, the only independent claim at issue, is illustrative of the
`invention and reproduced below:
`10. A computing device comprising:
`a transceiver configurable to communicate with a hearing
`aid through a communication channel;
`a processor coupled to the transceiver; and
`a memory coupled to the processor and configured to store
`instructions that, when executed by the processor,
`cause the processor to:
`incremental hearing
`generate a sequence of
`correction filters based at least in part on a
`magnitude of a difference between a hearing
`aid profile and a hearing loss level associated
`with a user of the hearing aid, the sequence of
`incremental
`hearing
`correction
`filters
`including at least a first hearing correction
`filter and a second hearing correction filter;
`provide a first signal related to the first hearing
`correction
`filter of
`the
`sequence of
`incremental hearing correction filters to the
`hearing aid through the communication
`channel; and
`provide a second signal related to a second hearing
`correction
`filter of
`the
`sequence of
`incremental hearing correction filters to the
`hearing aid in response to receiving a
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`selection of the second hearing correction
`filter from a user of the hearing aid.
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–45 (2016). In applying a broadest reasonable
`construction, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`1. “hearing correction filter”
`The ’999 patent describes “hearing correction filter” as follows:
`As used herein, the term “hearing correction filter” refers to a
`collection of filters for hearing aid 202, which are applied by
`processor 210 within hearing aid 202 to a hearing aid profile to
`reduce the level of correction provided to the user by application
`of the hearing aid profile. 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 loss to
`ease the user’s transition from uncompensated to corrected
`hearing.
`Ex. 1101, 2:65–3:7. Both parties advance that this description provides an
`express definition of “hearing correction filter,” yet both parties reach
`different conclusions as to what that definition is. Pet. 13–15; Prelim.
`Resp. 11–13.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`Petitioner argues that, according to this description, a “hearing
`correction filter” is 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. Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner, on the other hand, contends that an
`individual “hearing correction filter” is itself a “collection of filters” that are
`applied to a hearing aid profile. Prelim. Resp. 12–13.
`We recognize, as Patent Owner points out, that the ’999 patent states
`that “the term ‘hearing correction filter’ refers to a collection of filters,”
`suggesting that a single hearing correction filter actually is a collection of
`filters. Ex. 1101, 2:65–66. Nevertheless, the patent’s use of the term in
`context indicates that a hearing correction filter actually is a single filter that
`is a member of a collection. Specifically, the patent explains that “[t]he
`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.” Id. at 3:2–5. The patent then expands on this explanation of a
`collection of filters:
`In such an instance, a first hearing correction filter attenuates the
`hearing aid profile by a pre-determined amount, limiting the
`adjustment provided by hearing aid 202. Each of subsequent
`hearing correction filter in the sequence increases the correction
`provided by (decreases the attenuation applied to) the hearing aid
`profile to some degree, until the sequence is complete and the
`hearing aid profile is fully applied to provide the desired hearing
`correction for the user.
`Ex. 1101, 3:7–15. Here, the patent describes individual hearing correction
`filters that are part of a collection and are individually applied in sequence.
`Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 12–13) argues that additional description
`in the specification supports its construction, namely:
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`Further, it should be understood 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 that are applied by a processor of the hearing aid
`to alter various characteristics of the sounds to modulate them to
`compensate for the user’s hearing impairment.
`Id. at 5:42–48. This description on its face describes a single filter that is
`composed of multiple coefficients or parameters. Nevertheless, Patent
`Owner argues that an individual hearing correction filter must include a
`collection of filters because it adjusts a plurality of coefficients, parameters,
`and settings to alter various characteristics of sound. Prelim. Resp. 12–13.
`Patent Owner does not advance any persuasive evidence or argument that an
`individual filter must be limited to adjusting a single coefficient or parameter
`such that an individual hearing correction filter cannot adjust multiple
`coefficients or parameters. Thus, on the current record, this passage is
`equally consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`On this record, based on the definition in the specification when
`viewed in its proper context, we construe “hearing correction filter” to mean
`“a filter that is applied by a processor within a hearing aid to a hearing aid
`profile to reduce the level of correction provided to the user by application
`of the hearing aid profile.”
`Petitioner further contends that a hearing correction filter should not
`be construed to cover a filter that is applied to modulate an audio signal that
`already has been modulated by the hearing aid profile, arguing that such a
`construction would be contradicted by the embodiments and definition
`provided by the specification. Pet. 14–15. In its proposed construction of a
`related term, “incremental hearing correction filter,” Patent Owner appears
`to agree. Prelim. Resp. 15 (“The Board must adopt a construction for
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`‘incremental hearing correction filter’ consistent with the specification—
`specifically, the incremental hearing correction filter is applied to the
`hearing aid profile.”).
`Nevertheless, we decline to place such a restriction on “hearing
`correction filter,” as it is inconsistent with the claim language itself, at least
`in some instances. For example, claim 1 recites “the selected hearing aid
`profile configured to modulate the electrical signals to a level to compensate
`for a hearing impairment of a user” and “apply a first one of a sequence of
`incremental hearing correction filters to the modulated electrical signals to
`produce a modulated output signal.” In this instance, the hearing correction
`filter is applied to the electrical signals already modulated by the hearing aid
`profile. Compare with claim 6 (“apply a first hearing correction filter to the
`selected hearing aid profile”).
`
`
`2. “incremental hearing correction filter”
`Petitioner contends that “incremental hearing correction filter,” as
`recited in claim 1, should be construed as “a hearing correction filter applied
`to provide a modulated output signal having a level that is within a range
`between an uncompensated output level and the desired output level.”
`Pet. 16. Petitioner bases its proposal on description in the Specification that
`is contends is definitional. Id. at 15–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:24–32).
`“Incremental hearing correction filter” is related to two terms defined
`in the specification. As explained above, the specification defines “hearing
`correction filter.” Ex. 1101, 2:65–3:15. The specification also provides a
`definition of “incremental hearing correction”:
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`As used herein, the term “incremental hearing correction” refers
`to a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid
`202 (such as a hearing aid profile described above), which are
`used by processor 210 within hearing aid 202 to shape acoustic
`signals to correct for a user’s hearing loss. Each of the
`incremental hearing corrections represents an intermediate
`hearing adjustment to provide a modulated output signal having
`a level that is within a range between an uncompensated output
`level and the desired output level. In one embodiment, the
`incremental hearing corrections can be formed by applying one
`or more hearing correction filters to a selected hearing aid profile
`to produce the intermediate hearing aid profiles.
`Id. at 3:24–36. Taking these definitions together, we construe incremental
`hearing correction filter to be a hearing correction filter (as construed above)
`that represents an intermediate hearing adjustment to provide a modulated
`output signal having a level that is within a range between an
`uncompensated output level and the desired output level.
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s proposal “eliminates the
`requirement that the filter is applied to the hearing aid profile, seeking to
`divorce the term from its context.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner
`proposes an alternative construction, namely, “a hearing correction filter
`applied to the selected hearing aid profile to provide a modulated output
`signal having a level that is within a range between an uncompensated
`output level and the desired output level.” Id. As explained in our
`construction of “hearing correction filter,” above, Petitioner proposes that
`hearing correction filters apply to hearing aid profiles rather than modulated
`signals output from such profiles. See Pet. 14–15. As we note above,
`however, the claims themselves expressly recite what the hearing correction
`filters apply to. Thus, we reject Patent Owner’s argument as to “incremental
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`hearing correction filter” for the same reasons we reject Petitioner’s
`argument as to “hearing correction filter.”
`
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.2 See Graham v. John Deere
`Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`
`1. Level of Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have been someone with a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer
`engineering, or the equivalent, and at least two years of experience in audio
`signal processing for audiological products” and that “[g]raduate education
`could substitute for work experience, and additional work
`experience/training could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 11 (citing
`Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 22–28) (emphasis added). Petitioner relies on the Atlas
`
`
`2 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of
`nonobviousness.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`Declaration, which states that a skilled artisan “would have had a B.S.
`degree in electrical or computer engineering, or the equivalent, and at least
`two years of experience in hearing aid systems.” Ex. 1108 ¶ 28 (emphasis
`added).
`Patent Owner points out that the statements of relevant work
`experience by Petitioner (signal processing for audiological products) and
`Dr. Atlas’s (hearing aid systems) are “slightly different” and concludes that
`there is no evidence supporting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Prelim.
`Resp. 17–18.
`It is not necessary to resolve the apparent dispute to reach a
`determination on the merits, since we find that the level of ordinary skill in
`the art is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate
`level of skill in the art).
`
`
`2. Alleged Obviousness over Fichtl and Mangold
`Petitioner contends that claims 10, 13, 14, and 20 would have been
`obvious over Fichtl and Mangold. Pet. 18–38. For the reasons given below,
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
`with respect to this challenge.
`
`
`a. Overview of Fichtl
`Fichtl describes a hearing device that implements an acclimatization
`algorithm. Ex. 1103, Abstract. Acclimatization is the process by which,
`over the course of several weeks to half a year, the intensity of a hearing
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`device gradually is increased from an initially low intensity to a target
`intensity. Id. at 1:19–26.
`Fichtl’s hearing device is depicted in Figure 1, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of hearing device 1. Id. at 3:1–2. Sounds
`are picked up by microphone 2, processed by signal processor 9, and
`presented to hearing device user 10 by receiver 3. Id. at 3:23–25. User 10
`controls the magnitude of amplification using volume control 4. Id. at 3:25–
`26. Controller 6 sets hearing device parameters when hearing device 1 is
`switched on or when volume control 4 is actuated. Id. at 3:28–30. Non-
`volatile memory 7 stores parameters when hearing device 1 is off. Id. at
`3:30–32. Controller 6 executes an acclimatization algorithm. Id. at 3:32–34.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`Fichtl’s acclimatization algorithm is described with respect to
`Figure 2, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a graph that depicts how an audio processing parameter (“APP”)
`is changed over time in a hearing aid. Id. at 3:3–5. Examples of APP
`include volume, treble, and noise cancelling. Id. at 3:42–47.
`At time A, an audiologist (11 in Figure 1) programs into memory 7
`initial power-on value iPOV and target power-on value tPOV for the APP,
`for example tPOV being 10 dB higher than iPOV. Id. at 3:42–48. At time
`B, user 10 switches the hearing aid on and the APP is set to iPOV. Id. at
`3:49–53. An intermediate value of APP, X, is increased at time C. Id. at
`3:54–57. At time D, the user selects the APP to be two steps higher than the
`original audio processing parameter, APPref, and X is increased faster. Id. at
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`3:58–61. At time E, the user selects the APP to be one step lower than
`APPref, and X is increased more slowly. Id. at 3:62–65.
`The user switches the hearing aid off at time F and intermediate value
`X is stored in memory 7 as the first replacement power-on value rPOV.
`Id. at 3:66–4:4. The user switches the hearing aid back on at time G and the
`APP is set to rPOV and intermediate value X is increased. Id. at 4:5–7. At
`time H, intermediate value X reaches tPOV and is not changed anymore, at
`which time the acclimatization phase ends. Id. at 4:8–11. When the user
`switches the hearing aid off, as at time I, the value stored in memory 7,
`second replacement value rPOV2, is tPOV. Id. at 4:12–15.
`
`
`b. Overview of Mangold
`Mangold describes an auditory prosthesis (hearing aid) with
`datalogging capability. Ex. 1107, Abstract. Figures 2 and 3, reproduced
`below, illustrate an example:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a functional block diagram of remote-controlled programmable
`hearing aid 4 and Figure 3 is a functional block diagram of remote control
`unit 6 for use with hearing aid 4. Id. at 2:42–48.
`Hearing aid 4 includes microphone 10, signal processor 12 with slave
`memory, speaker 14, and programmable memory with logic 20, which
`includes logic for datalogging capability. Id. at 3:22–29. Remote control 6
`is worn on a user’s wrist or placed in a pocket. Id. at 3:38–40. Remote
`control 6 includes programmable block 26 with an automatic program
`selector (“APS”) to automatically select a program in response to the
`ambient noise level as detected by microphone 32. Id. at 3:49–52.
`“Programs,” as used in Mangold, are “one or more of: specific settings of a
`limited number of parameters; selection of a processing configuration of
`strategy; modification of a prosthesis control program; or setting of
`coefficients in a prosthesis program.” Id. at 2:28–33. The selected program
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`is transmitted to the hearing aid where the program is entered. Id. at 3:57–
`59.
`
`In its datalogging capability, memory 20 of hearing aid 4 records
`environmentally selected events, such as selection of programs based on a
`current sound environment. Id. at 1:40–49. After a period of time, the
`dispenser of the hearing aid can connect to the hearing aid, read out the data
`stored in memory 20, and determine a new set of operating parameters for
`the hearing aid based on the degree to which the user has used the original
`programs. Id. at 2:3–11.
`In an alternative embodiment (depicted in Figures 4 and 5), the
`functions of datalogging unit 20 of the hearing aid of Figure 2 are placed in
`programmable APS with logic unit 26 in remote control unit 9 of Figure 5.
`Id. at 4:11–21.
`
`
`c. Claims 10, 13, 14, and 20
`Claim 10 recites a “computing device” that communicates with “a
`hearing aid.” As noted above, Fichtl describes a hearing device, states that
`additional devices such as a remote control can be considered a part of the
`hearing device, Ex. 1103, 1:14–18, and depicts device 12 interfacing with
`hearing device 1, id. at Fig. 1. Petitioner identifies Fichtl’s remote control as
`a “computing device,” as recited in claim 10, but acknowledges that Fichtl
`does not describe details of its remote control. Pet. 18. Petitioner argues
`that the details of a remote control for a hearing aid can be found in
`Mangold. Id. at 18–19. According to Petitioner, “it would have been
`obvious to implement Fichtl’s hearing device such that Fichtl’s user
`controls, controller to determine audio processing parameters (APPs), and
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`memory to store the APPs are implemented in Fichtl’s remote control, as
`Mangold discloses implementing similar or analogous components, used for
`a similar purpose, in a remote control.” Id. at 19. As noted above, Mangold
`describes its remote control as including programmable block 26 with an
`automatic program selector to automatically select a program in response to
`the detected ambient noise level and memory to store programs. Ex. 1107,
`3:49–52, 4:11–21. Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan “would have been
`motivated to incorporate Fichtl’s user controls, controller, and memory in
`Fichtl’s remote control, as taught by Mangold” to provide the benefit of
`acclimatization, as taught in Fichtl, but keeping the processor and memory
`components in the remote control to make the hearing aid “smaller, lighter in
`weight, and less visible,” as taught in Mangold. Pet. 20–21 (quoting
`Ex. 1107, 1:67–2:2). Petitioner further notes that U.S. Patent No.
`6,741,712 B2 (“Bisgaard”) describes using the hearing aid of Mangold with
`a “habituation system” that provides acclimatization. Id. (citing Ex. 1106,
`1:5–15, 2:48–56).
`Regarding “a transceiver configurable to communicate with a hearing
`aid through a communication channel,” Petitioner cites to Figure 1 and the
`claims of Fichtl to show audiologist 11 inputting parameters to hearing
`device 1 via fitting interface 8. Id. at 22–23. According to Petitioner, a
`transceiver is a well-known mechanism for communicating between
`electronic devices and would have been employed in Fichtl’s remote
`controller. Id. at 24. Moreover, Petitioner argues, Mangold describes its
`remote control as including a transmitter for sending information to its
`hearing aid, confirming that Fichtl’s remote control would include such a
`transmitter. Id. at 24–25.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`Regarding “a processor coupled to the transceiver” and “a memory
`coupled to the processor and configured to store instructions,” as recited in
`claim 10, Petitioner points to Fichtl’s controller 6 and memory 7, and argues
`that Fichtl would be modified, per Mangold’s teachings, to include these
`components in Fichtl’s remote control 12. Id. at 25–26.
`Patent Owner does not dispute these aspects of claim 10. On this
`record, Petitioner’s evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Fichtl and
`Mangold teach these limitations and Petitioner’s reasons to combine Fichtl
`and Mangold have rational underpinning.
`The parties dispute whether Fichtl and Mangold teach the instructions
`recited in claim 10. Specifically, the parties dispute whether the references
`teach:
`instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the
`processor to: generate a sequence of incremental hearing
`correction filters based at least in part on a magnitude of a
`difference between a hearing aid profile and a hearing loss level
`associated with a user of the hearing aid, the sequence of
`incremental hearing correction filters including at least a first
`hearing correction filter and a second hearing correction filter
`as recited in claim 10.
`Petitioner cites Fichtl for this aspect of claim 10. As explained above,
`Fichtl describes an algorithm for changing over time an APP corresponding
`to a user’s hearing loss. Ex. 1103, 3:35–4:15. Petitioner contends that
`Fichtl’s algorithm would be applied to multiple APPs in a collection that
`would correspond to a “hearing aid profile,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 28–
`29. As Petitioner notes (id.), Fichtl describes processing a signal “based on
`audio processing parameters,” and that the controller is “adapted to set such
`parameters, for example, when the hearing device 1 is switched on or when
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`the volume control 4 is actuated,” Ex. 1103, 3:23–30, suggesting that
`Fichtl’s system processes multiple APPs as part of a collection.
`Petitioner contends that, because “Fichtl’s acclimatization algorithm
`corresponds to adjustments applied by controller 6 to the collection of APPs
`of processor 9 to reduce the level of correction provided to the hearing
`device user by application of the hearing aid profile,” the algorithm
`comprises a sequence of hearing correction filters. Pet. 29. Petitioner
`further contends that, because the algorithm outputs intermediate APP
`values with reduced amplitudes relative to tPOV, the algorithm provides a
`modulated output signal having a level that is within a range between an
`uncompensated output level and the desired output level, and, thus, includes
`“incremental hearing correction filters.” Pet. 29–30.
`Relying on its proposed construction of “hearing correction filter,”
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner does not show a hearing correction
`filter that comprises a collection of filters. Prelim. Resp. 18–19. According
`to Patent Owner, “[w]hile Fichtl may describe that the APP increases over
`time until it reaches tPOV, Fichtl fails to describe that the gradual increases
`in the APP are produced by a collection of filters.” Id. at 19. Patent Owner
`argues that “[t]he increase in the APP in Fichtl is not due to the application
`of a collection of filters as in the ’999 Patent, but rather due to the
`application of a single, simple algorithm that increases the APP.” Id. at 20.
`Patent Owner distinguishes Fichtl’s algorithm from that of the ’999 patent,
`which, Patent Owner argues, “describes that the hearing correction filter
`alters various characteristics of the sounds,” such as gradually changing the
`decibel levels for different frequencies at different times. Id. at 20–22.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`As explained in Section II.A.1 above, an individual “hearing
`correction filter” is “a filter that is applied by a processor within a hearing
`aid to a hearing aid profile to reduce the level of correction provided to the
`user by application of the hearing aid profile,” and need not be a collection
`of such filters. Each stage of Fichtl’s algorithm (e.g., iPOV, rPOV) is
`applied to an APP to reduce the level of correction provided to the user.
`Each of these stages represents an intermediate hearing adjustment to
`provide a modulated output signal having a level that is within a range
`between an uncompensated output level and the desired output level and,
`thus, is an “incremental hearing correction filter.”
`Moreover, as explained above, Petitioner has shown evidence that the
`APP of Fichtl’s example is one of several audio parameter values, rather
`than a single audio parameter value. Ex. 1103, 3:27–32. In Petitioner’s
`combination, Fichtl’s algorithm operates on multiple parameters. Thus,
`even under Patent Owner’s construction of “hearing correction filter,”
`Petitioner’s evidence suggests that Fichtl and Mangold teach such a filter, as
`it would operate on multiple coefficients and parameters.
`As to “generate a sequence of incremental hearing correction filters
`based at least in part on a magnit
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
