`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`_________________
`
`
`Declaration of Clyde “Kip” Brown
`In Support of Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`1
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................. 5
`
`Qualifications ............................................................................................... 5
`
`My Understanding of the Obviousness Standard in Determining
`Patentability ................................................................................................. 7
`
`Basis of Opinion ........................................................................................... 8
`
`Overview of the ’999 Patent ...................................................................... 10
`
`A. Background ........................................................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claims .............................................................................. 17
`
`C. Prosecution History of the ’999 Patent ................................................. 18
`
`VI.
`
`Claim Construction .................................................................................... 18
`
`VII.
`
`Claims 10, 13, 14, and 20 Are Patentable .................................................. 20
`
`A. Overview of Distinctions for the Combination of Fichtl and
`Mangold ................................................................................................ 20
`
`B. Fichtl in view of Mangold and Bisgaard does not disclose
`“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 ................................................. 27
`
`C. Fichtl in view of Mangold and Bisgaard does not disclose
`“generate a sequence of incremental hearing correction filters,” as
`recited in claim 10 ................................................................................. 31
`
`
`
`2
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`VIII. Fichtl in view of Mangold and Sacha fails to teach the elements of
`claims 11 and 15 ........................................................................................ 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Document
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2103
`
`2104
`
`2105
`
`Comparison of the Petition arguments and Les Atlas
`Declaration for certain claim limitations
`
`Highlighted version of Les Atlas Declaration
`
`Expert Declaration of Clyde “Kip” Brown, Jr., P.E.
`
`CV of Clyde “Kip” Brown, Jr., P.E.
`
`Deposition Transcript of Les Atlas, September 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`I.
`I, Clyde "Kip" Brown, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in
`
`this declaration and could testify competently to them if asked to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of III Holdings 4, LLC (“Patent Owner”) to
`
`provide expert opinions in connection with an inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999 (“the ’999 patent”) assigned case number
`
`IPR2017-00782. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinion
`
`relating to an inquiry into the patentability of claims 10, 11, 13-15, and 20
`
`(“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’999 patent.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent on this matter by Patent Owner,
`
`including independent study, document review, analysis, and writing, at my
`
`standard hourly consulting rates. My compensation is not dependent upon
`
`my testimony or the outcome of this or any other proceeding. I have no
`
`financial interest in Patent Owner.
`
`II. Qualifications
`4.
`I have over 45 years of engineering design experience as an analog mixed
`
`signal IC designer. I have developed both smart power and single battery
`
`ultra-low noise processes and ICs.
`
`
`
`5
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I was founder, President, and CTO of The Engineering Consortium (referred
`
`
`
`to and known as “TEC” by the hearing aid industry from 1980 through 2003.
`
`TEC developed multiple custom and standard products for the hearing
`
`industry. This involved close interaction with their advanced development
`
`engineering departments to develop ICs for their new products. Some
`
`representative products (nonproprietary) we developed include:
`
`• Designed first WDRC hearing aid (K-Amp with Etymotic Research) and
`
`first single battery HA class D power amp (D-Amp for Knowles)
`
`• Designed and produced
`
`the
`
`industry standard
`
`(single battery)
`
`programming chip for hearing aids (DSD – TEC941)
`
`• Designed and produced the first single chip, fully programmable, hearing
`
`aid IC, the HSOC™ (low noise analog, digital, EEPROM including 8
`
`prescription memories all at one volt on a single SOC chip)
`
`• Developed full DSP u-processor, single battery, hearing aid SOC
`
`6.
`
`TEC developed both the low noise composite processes involving analog,
`
`digital, and EEPROM on a single chip and several custom and standard ICs
`
`for the hearing industry. In addition, we developed the programming
`
`software for our DSD programming chip and our SOC hearing aid chips,
`
`including custom fitting procedures, such as gain, compression ratios, band-
`
`split frequencies, filter parameters, graphic display of resulting prescription,
`6
`
`
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`etc. In my consulting following TEC, I developed a turnkey (design, layout,
`
`fab and production) of an ultra-low noise amplifier and charge pump for a
`
`MEMS microphone.
`
`7.
`
`Other details concerning my background, professional service, and more, are
`
`set forth in my curriculum vitae. Exh. 2104.
`
`8.
`
`In forming my opinion expressed in this report, I relied on my knowledge,
`
`skill, training, and education and many years of professional experience in
`
`hearing aid technology.
`
`III. My Understanding of the Obviousness Standard in Determining
`Patentability
`9.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is not patentable if the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed (“POSA” or “POSITA”). This means that even if
`
`all of the requirements of the claim cannot be found in a single prior art
`
`reference so as to anticipate the claim, the claim might still be not patentable
`
`if the claimed invention would have been obvious.
`
`10. To obtain a patent, a claimed invention must have been nonobvious in view
`
`of the prior art in the field. I understand that an invention is obvious when
`
`the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`
`
`
`7
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`at the time the invention was made to a POSTIA.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that to prove that a prior art reference or a combination of prior
`
`art references renders a patent obvious, it is necessary to: (1) identify the
`
`particular references that either alone, or in combination, render the patent
`
`obvious; (2) specifically identify which elements of the patent claim appear
`
`in each of the asserted references; and (3) explain how the prior art
`
`references could have been combined in order to create the inventions
`
`claimed in the particular claim at issue.
`
`IV. Basis of Opinion
`12.
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have considered and
`
`relied upon my education, background, and experience. I reviewed the
`
`Petition filed by Petitioner along with relevant exhibits to the Petition. A list
`
`of reviewed materials that is most relevant to my opinion is presented below.
`
`I understand these documents have been or will be submitted as exhibits in
`
`this IPR proceeding with the following exhibit numbers:
`
`Exhibit/Paper
`Number
`Exh. 1101
`Exh. 1102
`Exh. 1103
`
`
`
`Document Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999 to Mindlin
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999 to Mindlin
`U.S. Patent No. 8,787,603 to Fichtl
`
`8
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0215105 to Sacha
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0036637 to Janssen
`U.S. Patent No. 6,741,712 to Bisgaard
`U.S. Patent No. 4,972,487 to Mangold
`Declaration of Les Atlas
`German patent publication DE19542961 with translation
`U.S. Patent No. 7,933,419 to Roeck
`Michael Valente, “Guideline for Audiologic Management of
`the Adult Patient”
`Good Practice Guidance for Adult Hearing Aid Fittings and
`Services – Background to the Document and Consultation
`Keidser, “Variation in preferred gain with experience for
`hearing-aid user”
`Dillon, “The trainable hearing aid: What will it do for clients
`and clinicians?”
`Petition
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Institution Decision
`Deposition Transcript of Les Atlas, September 27, 2017
`
`Exh. 1104
`Exh. 1105
`Exh. 1106
`Exh. 1107
`Exh. 1108
`Exh. 1109
`Exh. 1110
`
`Exh. 1111
`
`Exh. 1112
`
`Exh. 1113
`
`Exh. 1114
`
`Paper No. 3
`Paper No. 7
`Paper No. 8
`Exh. 2105
`
`
`13.
`
`In addition, I understand the ’999 patent was filed on April 12, 2011 and
`
`claims priority to Provisional Application No. 61/323,841, filed on April 13,
`
`2010, and Provisional Application No. 61/305,759, filed on June 2, 2010.
`
`14.
`
`I understand the definition of a POSITA as set forth in Dr. Atlas’ declaration
`
`is defined as a person with a B.S. degree in electrical or computer
`
`engineering, or the equivalent, and at least two years of experience in
`
`hearing aid systems. Graduate education could substitute for work
`
`
`
`9
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`experience, and additional work experience/training could substitute for
`
`formal education.
`
`15. All the opinions I provide in this declaration are based on the knowledge of
`
`a person that has at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer
`
`engineering, or the equivalent, and one to two years of experience in audio
`
`signal processing for audiological products. As noted above, graduate
`
`education could substitute for work experience, and additional work
`
`experience/training could substitute for formal education.
`
`16.
`
`I also understand that claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understanding a
`
`POSITA.
`
`V. Overview of the ’999 Patent
`A. Background
`17. U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999 (“the ’999 patent”) is entitled “SYSTEM AND
`
`METHOD OF PROGRESSIVE HEARING DEVICE ADJUSTMENT” and
`
`issued on February 18, 2014. I understand that the ’999 patent ultimately
`
`claims prior to applications filed on claims priority to applications filed on
`
`April 13, 2010 and June 2, 2010.
`
`
`
`10
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`18. The ’999 patent explains that “for some users, transitioning from not
`
`
`
`wearing a hearing aid to wearing a hearing aid can be traumatic. In
`
`particular, sounds that the user is not accustomed to hearing can suddenly be
`
`made audible to the user by the hearing aid.” Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 1:58-
`
`61. For individuals, wearing hearing aids for the first time, the users “can
`
`experience psychological distress when hearing is restored to a normal level
`
`after years of suffering from hearing loss.” Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 1:62-
`
`65. The’999 patent describes these challenges and explains a solution that
`
`involves providing an incremental or progressive filtering of audio signals
`
`that includes a group of HCFs to gradually adjust the user’s experience from
`
`an uncompensated hearing level to a fully compensated hearing level using
`
`hearing aid profiles. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 2:26-35.
`
`19. Hearing aid profiles are a collection of acoustic configuration settings for a
`
`hearing aid, and the hearing aid profiles are used by the hearing aid to shape
`
`acoustic signals to correct for users hearing loss. The complete hearing aid
`
`profile would be a complex set of correction factors designed to compensate
`
`for the hearing loss of the patient.
`
`20. The typical patient will have lost sensitivity to quiet sounds and a
`
`progressively increasing loss at higher frequencies as depicted in figure 1 of
`
`
`
`11
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`the ‘999 patent. These quiet sounds are critical to speech recognition. The
`
`patient’s sensitivity to loud sounds is not as significantly impacted.
`
`Increasing the loudness of the output signal by a hearing aid does not
`
`compensate for the loss of hearing experienced by the user. At the time of
`
`the ‘999 patent, compensating for loss was understood to be addressed by
`
`Wide Dynamic Range Compression (WDRC), where the quiet sounds are
`
`amplified significantly but the gain factor is reduced as amplitude increases
`
`such that loud sounds are acceptable to the user. This allows the hearing aid
`
`to compress the real world dynamic range into what remains of the patient’s
`
`hearing dynamic range, thus recovering some of the patient’s speech
`
`recognition. This is initially perceived as a distortion. As the brain adjusts to
`
`the new logarithmic response, a change in the compression ratio and can be
`
`adapted to in a few weeks.
`
`21.
`
` In a multi-band hearing aid this would require setting the quiet gain,
`
`compression ratio and knee where the compression is adjusted for in the
`
`appropriate bands. A POSITA would understand that there would be settings
`
`for overall gain (possibly by band), feedback reduction, frequency
`
`compensation, maximum power output (MPO), etc. – generally too many
`
`settings for an average patient to understand. A POSITA would understand
`
`that there is a likelihood that patients may report the adjusted settings as
`
`
`
`12
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`being perceived as “too harsh” or tinny. These results would likely increase
`
`the return rate of hearing aids for what would be perceived as unsatisfactory
`
`performance. A POSITA would understand that the phasing-in approach by
`
`applying, incrementally, a different HCF over time as explained in the ’999
`
`patent would be a suitable solution to acclimate the user to the new
`
`perceived sounds.
`
`22. A POSITA would further understand that changes to different settings may
`
`not be appropriate depending on the level of adjustment required during a
`
`particular phase, and thus only some settings would need to be improved in
`
`varying sequences as depicted in Fig 1. A POSITA would recognize that
`
`applying progressive filters (modified filter parameters) to only those
`
`portions of the signal, which still required changes, would be a more
`
`efficient method to train the patient’s brain to relearn how to use the sound-
`
`based information presented by the properly corrected profile.
`
`23. One method of compensation for hearing impairment is to provide multiple
`
`filters for the hearing aid profile. Each profile would be associated with the
`
`appropriate filters to alter the frequencies from the received signal, for
`
`example, that meet the compensation characteristics for the individual user.
`
`This allows the system of the ’999 to provide incremental adjustment by
`
`
`
`13
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`having a series of HCFs, each with multiple filters for the appropriate
`
`frequencies, in a particular sequence determined by the individual user’s
`
`hearing loss.
`
`24. As explained in the ’999 patent applies a collection of incremental HFCs to a
`
`hearing aid profile to reduce the level of correction provided to the user by
`
`the application of the hearing aid profile. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 2:66-3:2.
`
`The collection of incremental HCFs are applied sequentially over a period of
`
`time. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 3:2-5. A POSITA would understand that a
`
`first HCF attenuates the hearing aid profile by a pre-determined amount,
`
`limiting the adjustment provided by the hearing aid. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent
`
`at 3:7-10. Each subsequent HCF in the sequence, after being applied to the
`
`hearing aid profile, decreases the attenuation of the profile provided by a
`
`preceding HCF until the sequence is complete. The goal is to achieve a fully
`
`compensating the hearing aid profile to provide the intended hearing
`
`correction for the user. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 3:10-15. These aspects of
`
`the ‘999 patent are shown in Figure 1 below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`In an example embodiment of the ’999 patent, the hearing aid communicates
`
`with a computing device via a transceiver. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 5:49-
`
`56; FIG. 2 (reproduced below). The computing device includes several
`
`hearing aid profiles and HCFs, and may selectively provide a desired
`
`hearing aid profile with an appropriate HCF to be applied by the hearing aid.
`
`Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 6:36-41.
`15
`
`
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`26. The hearing aid applies a first incremental hearing correction and after a
`
`period of time has passed, or a trigger is received (for example, from the
`
`computing device), the hearing aid may apply a second incremental hearing
`
`correction. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 5:3-9; 7:9-10; 9:59-62. The hearing aid
`
`continues applying
`
`the
`
`incremental hearing corrections
`
`to achieve
`
`progressively enhanced hearing sensitivity until the desired correction level
`
`of the selected hearing aid profile is reached. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 5:9-
`
`14.
`
`27. The hearing aid can also issue an alert notifying the user that the hearing
`
`adjustment is at desired levels and that the adjustment process is complete.
`
`Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 10:55-59. The alert can either be sent to a display
`
`or made audible for the user. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 10:59-62.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Independent Claims
`28. The ’999 patent includes three independent claims (1, 6 and 10).
`
`Independent claim 10
`
`is challenged
`
`in
`
`this IPR (IPR2017-00782).
`
`Independent claim 10 is directed to a computing device that has a memory
`
`that is configured to generate a sequence of incremental hearing correction
`
`filters and provide the hearing correction filters to the hearing aid.
`
`29. As an example, Claim 10 is provided 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:
`
`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;
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`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 selection of the
`second hearing correction filter from a user of the hearing aid.
`
`
`C. Prosecution History of the ’999 Patent
`30.
`I understand that the Examiner allowed the claims of the ’999 patent based
`
`on amendments made to the claims, including use of the term “hearing
`
`correction filter.” My understanding is that the Examiner allowed the claims
`
`that became claims 10, 11, 13-15 and 20 of the ’999 patent.
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`31.
`I have reviewed the following passage from the specification of the ’999
`
`patent:
`
`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. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 3:2-5.
`
`32.
`
`I have also reviewed the passage that further expands on the above quote:
`
`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
`
`
`
`18
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`degree, until the sequence is complete and the hearing aid profile is
`fully applied to provide the desired hearing correction for the user.
`’999 patent at 3:7-15.
`
`These passages merely describe how a larger collection includes smaller
`
`collections. A POSITA would understand that this passage would not impact the
`
`definition of hearing correction filter. It is my opinion that a POSITA would
`
`understand a hearing correction filter to be “a collection of filters 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” as expressly stated in the ’999 patent
`
`at 2:65-3:2.
`
`33.
`
`I have also reviewed the following passage:
`
`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. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 5:42-48.
`
`A POSITA would understand that this passage would not impact the definition of
`
`hearing correction filter. This passage merely explains how a correction line is
`
`achieved. It is my opinion that a POSITA would understand a hearing correction
`
`filter to be “a collection of filters applied by a processor to a hearing aid profile to
`
`
`
`19
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`reduce the level of correction provided to a user by application of the hearing aid
`
`profile” as expressly stated in the ’999 patent at 2:65-3:2.
`
`VII. Claims 10, 13, 14, and 20 Are Patentable
`A. Overview of Distinctions for the Combination of Fichtl and Mangold
`
`34. The combined teachings of Fichtl and Mangold do not teach or suggest
`
`“instructions” to “generate a sequence of incremental hearing correction
`
`filters….” Specifically, Fichtl and Mangold alone or in combination fail to
`
`teach or suggest at least the features of “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.
`
`35. Fichtl is directed to acclimatization of a user of a hearing correction device
`
`by allowing the user to control a volume of the hearing device in order to
`
`increase the intensity of the hearing device in the long term (e.g., during
`
`several months). Exh. 1103, Fichtl at Abstract, 2:62-67. A POSITA would
`
`understand that by allowing a user to manually control his or her hearing
`
`correction, it rarely will get to a proper final correction. A POSITA would
`
`
`
`20
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`understand it is very difficult for users to appreciate the complexity of the
`
`appropriate hearing aid profile.
`
`36. With reference to figures 1 and 2 of Fichtl (reproduced below), Fichtl
`
`describes changing the volume over time in a hearing device as follows:
`
`• At time “A”, a fitter programs an initial power-on value iPOV
`for the audio processing parameter APP 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.
`• At time “B”, the hearing device user 10 switches on the hearing
`device 1. The initial power-on-value iPOV is read from the
`non-volatile memory 7. The audio-processing parameter APP is
`set to the initial power-on value iPOV.
`• At time “C”, the hearing device user 10 uses the hearing device
`1 but has not actuated the control 4 yet. An intermediate value
`X which will later become the next power-on value is increased
`slowly.
`• At time “D”, the hearing device user 10 has selected the audio-
`processing parameter APP to be two steps higher than the initial
`audio-processing parameter APPref. The intermediate value X is
`now increased faster.
`• At time “E”, the hearing device user 10 has selected the audio-
`processing parameter APP to be one step lower than the initial
`audio-processing parameter APPref. The intermediate value X is
`now increased slower again.
`
`
`
`21
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`• At time “F”, the hearing device user 10 switches off the hearing
`device 1. The intermediate value X is now stored frequently
`(e.g. every hour) in the non-volatile memory 7 to be the next
`power-on value. The intermediate value X lastly stored to the
`non-volatile memory 7 is therefore the first replacement power-
`on-value rPOV1.
`• At time “G”, the hearing device user 10 switches on the hearing
`device 1. The audio processing parameter APP is set to the
`previously stored power-on-value.
`• At time “H”, the acclimatization phase ends. The intermediate
`value X has reached the target power-on-value tPOV. From this
`point on, the intermediate value X is not changed any more.
`• At time “I”, the hearing device user 10 switches off the hearing
`device 1. The second replacement power-on-value rPOV2 which
`is now stored in the non-volatile memory 7 is the target power-
`on-value tPOV.
`
`Exh. 1103, Fichtl at 2:41-3:15.
`
`
`
`22
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Furthermore, Fichtl discloses a software implementation of the above
`
`acclimatization process. In particular, Fichtl describes a controller executing
`
`software to perform:
`
`
`
`a) writing a value indicative of said target power-on value tPOV for
`said audio processing parameter APP to the non-volatile memory 7,
`b) waiting until the hearing device user 10 switches on the hearing
`device 1,
`
`
`
`23
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`c) setting said audio processing parameter APP to a power-on value
`POV, said power-on value POV being stored in said non-volatile
`memory 7 or being calculated from values stored in said non-volatile
`memory 7,
`d) allowing said hearing device user 10 to continuously perform one
`or more adjustment actions by the control 4 for adjusting said audio
`processing parameter APP to his or her preferences in varying
`listening situations,
`e) executing an acclimatization algorithm simultaneously with step d),
`after step d) and/or before step c), said acclimatization algorithm
`being designed to approximate said power-on value POV in the long
`term, in particular in more than a week, to said target power-on value
`tPOV, said acclimatization algorithm determining a replacement value
`rPOV for said power-on value POV taking into account which setting
`or settings for said audio processing parameter APP has or have been
`set by said hearing device user 10 and how long said setting or
`settings have been active.
`
`Exh. 1103, Fichtl at 3:25-51.
`
`38. Accordingly, Fichtl is directed to a software implementation of a sequence
`
`of disjointed volume adjustment events during each of which a volume of
`
`the hearing device is adjusted, according to a user provided adjustment
`
`command (the command is based on the user’s preferences for a particular
`
`listening situation the user is in at that moment in time). The final adjusted
`
`volume at the end of each disjoint volume adjustment event is then stored for
`24
`
`
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`use as an initial volume during a subsequent volume adjustment event for
`
`adjusting the volume.
`
`39. Fichtl discusses adjusting the volume of hearing aid over a period of time
`
`until a target volume/adjustment is reached over several months. Petitioner
`
`contends that this incremental adjustment of the volume of the hearing
`
`device, as disclosed by Fichtl, is a sequence of “hearing correction filters.”
`
`Petition at 29. Application of a hearing correction filter to a hearing aid
`
`profile can dynamically change/adjust selected frequencies of a signal. This
`
`is not possible with a volume adjustment.
`
`40. The combination of Fichtl in view of Mangold and Bisgaard suggests or
`
`teaches, at best, adjusting a volume of a hearing aid device over a period of
`
`several months until a target volume/intensity is reached.
`
`41. The ’999 patent explicitly recites that applying hearing correction filters to a
`
`hearing aid profile adjusts “selected frequencies to the desired hearing level
`
`while providing less of an enhancement to other frequencies” of a signal.
`
`Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 4:35-39. This is consistent with the explicit
`
`statement in the ’999 patent describing of the “collection of filters 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.” However, a volume
`
`
`
`25
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`adjustment, like Fichtl, is unable to dynamically change or adjust selected
`
`frequencies of a signal.
`
`42. A second distinction is that the combination of Fichtl, Mangold and
`
`
`
`Bisgaard does not teach “a sequence of incremental hearing correction
`
`filters,” where one collection of filters is designated to follow another
`
`collection of filters. As noted above, Fichtl discloses a user provided
`
`adjustment to the volume of the hearing device at different points in time,
`
`where the adjustment at any one point in time is solely based on a user
`
`provided command indicating the user’s hearing preferences at that
`
`particular moment in time. Fichtl does not teach a set of designated volumes
`
`with one adjustment in volume following another adjustment in volume.
`
`Instead, the combination, at best, suggests gradually adjusting a volume of a
`
`hearing aid based on a real-time command received from a user of the
`
`hearing device at a particular point in time.
`
`43. The ’999 patent explicitly recites that a processor may sequentially apply a
`
`series of generated hearing correction filters to a hearing aid profile, with
`
`each application of a hearing correction filter increasing the correction
`
`provided by the hearing aid profile more than a preceding hearing correction
`
`filter and less than a subsequent hearing correction filter (providing
`
`
`
`26
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`incremental corrections to the user’s hearing loss) until a last one of the
`
`hearing correction filters increases the correction to the intended correction
`
`provided by the hearing aid profile. Exh. 1101, ’999 patent at 2:65-3:30.
`
`B. Fichtl in view of Mangold and Bisgaard does not disclose “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
`44. The combined teachings of Fichtl in view of Mangold fail to teach a
`
`“sequence of hearing correction filters” provided to a hearing aid, and
`
`further fail to teach the sequence has at least a first and a second “hearing
`
`correction filter,” as recited in claim 10.
`
`45. Fichtl describes a series of disjointed volume adjustment events during each
`
`of which a volume of a hearing device is adjusted based on a user provided
`
`adjustment command (where each command is based on the user’s
`
`preferences for a particular listening situation the user is in at that moment in
`
`time). Exh. 1103, Fichtl at 2:41-3:15 and 3:25-51.
`
`46. As discussed above merely adjusting a volume is not the same as generating
`
`an incremental hearing correction filter for a hearing aid profile because
`
`changing a volume does not change frequency characteristics of the
`
`underlying audio signal, and changing volumes does not involve a
`
`“collection of filters”. Therefore, changing a volume, as suggested by Fichtl,
`27
`
`
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`Exhibit 2103
`
`
`
`
`
`does not teach or suggest generating an incremental hearing correction filter,
`
`as recited in
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
