`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: July 23, 2018
`571-272-7822
`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.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 also real
`parties in interest. Pet. 1. III Holdings 4, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, in our Institution Decision (Paper 8,
`“Dec.”), we instituted this proceeding as to claims 10, 11, 13–15, and 20, but
`not claim 12.
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 12, “PO
`Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response
`(Paper 15, “Reply”).
`Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 17,
`“Mot. to Exclude”), Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Exclude
`(Paper 21, “Opp. to Mot. to Exclude”), and Patent Owner filed a Reply to
`the Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper 22, “Reply Mot. to
`Exclude”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D. (Ex. 1108,
`“Atlas Decl.”).1 Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Clyde Brown
`(Ex. 2103, “Brown Decl.”).
`An oral argument was held on May 1, 2018 (Paper 28, “Tr.”).
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1369–60 (2018).
`Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the parties filed a Joint Motion to
`Limit the Petition to remove claim 12 from the proceeding, Paper 26, which
`we granted, Paper 27.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Decision is a final
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of claims
`10, 11, 13–15, and 20. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has proved,
`by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 10, 11, 13–15, and 20 are
`unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Matters
`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.
`
`
`1 Patent Owner argues that we should give Dr. Atlas’s Declaration no weight
`because it merely repeats the arguments in the Petition. PO Resp. 32–35. In
`the cases of both Dr. Atlas’s testimony and that of Mr. Brown (whose
`Declaration suffers from essentially the same defect Patent Owner ascribes
`to Dr. Atlas’s testimony) we evaluate the extent to which expert testimony
`discloses the underlying facts or data on which it is based as a factor in
`determining the weight to give that testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`We are not persuaded to discount either expert’s testimony entirely.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`C. Asserted Prior Art References
`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
`Ex. 1107 (“Mangold”) US 4,972,487
`
`Nov. 20, 1990
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`We instituted on the following grounds of unpatentability (Dec. 33):
`References
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Fichtl and Mangold
`§ 103(a)
`10, 13, 14, and 20
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`11 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
`correction for the user immediately, the hearing aid progressively applies
`incremental adjustments to progressively or gradually adjust the user’s
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`experience from an uncompensated hearing level to a fully compensated
`hearing level.” Id. at 2:30–34.
`Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates an embodiment of the hearing
`aid system of the ’999 patent:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`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
`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 . . . 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. The processor
`can provide an alert to the user when the user’s hearing is at the desired level
`and the adjustment process is complete. Id. at 10:55–59. For example, “the
`alert may be an audible alert reproduced through a speaker of hearing aid” or
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`“may be sent to the computing device for display on the display interface.”
`Id. at 10:59–62.
`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
`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:
`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;
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`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 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”
`In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily construed “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.” Dec. 9. The parties’
`primary dispute was whether an individual hearing correction filter itself
`must include a collection of filters, as Patent Owner advocates. Id. at 7–9.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`We rejected Patent Owner’s argument based on the preliminary record.
`Id. at 9. In its Response, Patent Owner asks us to revisit our construction
`and rule that a hearing correction filter requires a collection of filters. PO
`Resp. 14.
`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. Patent Owner argues that the first sentence in this
`passage provides a clear definition that “hearing correction filter,” singular
`means a collection of filters, plural. PO Resp. 14.
`“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a
`definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary
`meaning. It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single
`embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the
`patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Thorner v.
`Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366
`(Fed. Cir. 2002) and Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). As a starting point, the Federal
`Circuit has “repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in
`patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq
`Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting KCJ Corp.
`v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). According
`to the Federal Circuit, “[t]he exceptions to this rule are ‘extremely limited: a
`patentee must ‘evince [ ] a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’’”
`Id. (quoting Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342
`(Fed. Cir. 2008)). By the same reasoning, we look for a clear intent to limit
`“a” or “an” to more than one. Thus, we start with the premise that the
`language “a first hearing correction filter” and “a second hearing correction
`filter,” as recited in claim 10, identify one or more filters, and determine
`whether the specification evinces a clear intent to redefine these phrases to
`mean more than one filter.
`The claim language supports our preliminary construction by reciting
`a hearing correction filter as a member of a collection of filters rather than
`itself including a collection of filters. For example, claim 10 recites “a
`sequence of incremental hearing correction filters” and “the sequence of
`incremental hearing correction filters including at least a first hearing
`correction filter and a second hearing correction filter.” In this recitation, a
`collection of incremental hearing correction filters is recited as a set of
`individual filters (“first,” “second”) that are applied in a sequence.
`The specification also supports our preliminary construction. In the
`Decision on Institution, we recognized that the ’999 patent’s statement that
`“the term ‘hearing correction filter’ refers to a collection of filters” suggests
`that a single hearing correction filter actually is a collection of filters. Dec. 8
`(quoting Ex. 1101, 2:65–66). Nevertheless, consistent with the claim
`language discussed above, we explained that the patent’s use of the term in
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`context indicates that a hearing correction filter can be a single filter that is a
`member of a collection. Id. 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. This informs how the ’999 patent intends “collection of
`filters” to be understood. Here, the collection of hearing correction filters is
`a “series” of adjustments applied “in a sequence over a period of time,” not
`all at once. 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 contends that these passages “merely describe[] how a
`larger collection contains smaller collections.” PO Resp. 16. Mr. Brown
`repeats this argument in his testimony without further elaboration, and states
`that they do not impact the definition of hearing correction filter. Ex. 2103
`¶ 32. Patent Owner also cites to Dr. Atlas’s cross-examination testimony
`that it would not be unusual to refer to a filter that includes multiple filters.
`PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2105, 134:10–14 (“Q. In the world of audio devices
`in general, there would be nothing unusual about saying a filter comprises
`multiple other filters, is there? A. No, there wouldn’t be.”)). We disagree
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`with Patent Owner’s reading of these passages and do not give substantial
`weight to Mr. Brown’s testimony. As explained above, the specification
`describes a collection of individual filters that are applied in a sequence, not
`a collection of collections of filters applied in a sequence. As to Dr. Atlas’s
`cross-examination testimony, even if it is acceptable to say that a filter
`contains multiple filters, the specification does not suggest that it must be
`understood this way. Ex. 1101, 3:2–15.
`Patent Owner next argues (PO Resp. 16–17) that additional
`description in the specification supports its construction, namely:
`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.
`Ex. 1101, 5:42–48. As we noted in the Decision on Institution, this
`description on its face describes a single filter that is composed of multiple
`coefficients or parameters. Dec. 9. It does not state that a filter is comprised
`of multiple filters, each such filter corresponding to one of the coefficients or
`parameters. Patent Owner appears to disagree, arguing that “[t]o the extent
`that passage provides any context to how ‘hearing correction filter’ is used
`in the specification, it supports the express definition in the specification,”
`and otherwise provides no additional context. PO Resp. 16–17. In support,
`Patent Owner cites to Mr. Brown, who testifies that “[t]his passage merely
`explains how a correction line is achieved.” Ex. 2103 ¶ 33.
`Patent Owner attempted to clarify its position at the oral argument,
`contending that “a single filter would only be able to achieve a correction of
`a single frequency band” while “a collection of hearing correction filters
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`would be able to achieve the correction for multiple frequencies.”
`Tr. 29:16–19.2 Patent Owner, however, does not cite to persuasive evidence
`to support this argument. We find that this passage (Ex. 1001, 5:42–48) is
`consistent with either multiple filters, each adjusting a single characteristic,
`or a single filter with multiple coefficients for adjusting multiple
`characteristics.
`In a similar argument, Patent Owner contends that a hearing
`correction filter “impacts different frequencies of the signal in different
`ways.” PO Resp. 25. According to Mr. Brown, “applying a hearing
`correction filter to a hearing aid profile for adjusting a signal provides a
`varying effect on different frequencies of the signal.” Ex. 2103 ¶ 49. The
`specification explains, “in the illustrated example [of Figure 1], the hearing
`sensitivity lines 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 appear to indicate that the
`incremental hearing corrections adjust selected frequencies to the desired
`hearing level while providing less of an enhancement to other frequencies.”
`Ex. 1101, 4:35–39. According to Mr. Brown, a skilled artisan “would
`recognize that this means a collection of frequency adjustments not a single
`setting.” Ex. 2103 ¶ 49. However, the specification describes this as an
`“illustrated example,” not a limitation on the invention. Ex. 1101, 4:35.
`Indeed, as Petitioner points out (Reply 7–8), directly below this
`passage, the specification makes clear that “it should be understood that
`other incremental hearing corrections could be used. For example, in one
`
`
`2 Petitioner contended at the oral argument that adjustments to multiple
`coefficients or parameters could be implemented with a filter comprising
`multiple filters, but that the specification also describes implementing it with
`a single filter with multiple coefficients or parameters. Tr. 12:21–14:12.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`particular instance, 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.” Ex. 1101, 4:39–44. The specification continues: “In
`another instance, the incremental hearing correction could adjust selected
`frequencies by different amounts, providing a non-uniform hearing
`correction.” Id. at 4:44–47. Here, the specification clearly distinguishes
`between uniform and non-uniform hearing corrections.
`At the oral argument, Patent Owner argued “the ’999 patent discloses
`that the hearing correction filters can dampen an entire range of frequencies
`substantially evenly. Not entirely evenly. And dampening substantially
`evenly is done with a collection of filters.” Tr. 39:5–8. Patent Owner points
`to no evidence that the language “substantially evenly” was intended to draw
`a distinction between one filter adjusting all frequencies perfectly evenly and
`a collection of filters adjusting all frequencies substantially evenly.
`On the complete record, based on the language of the claims, the
`definition in the specification when viewed in its proper context, and the
`remaining consistent description in the specification, we maintain our
`construction of “hearing correction filter,” namely, “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.”
`In the Petition, Petitioner argued 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. Claim 10, the independent claim
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`at issue in this proceeding, does not recite applying the first and second
`hearing correction filters. Nevertheless, we declined to place such a
`restriction on “hearing correction filter,” as the claims themselves, where
`applicable, recite the signals to which the hearing correction filter is applied.
`Dec. 9–10; see also claim 1 (“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”), claim 6 (“apply a first hearing correction filter to
`the selected hearing aid profile”). Patent Owner appears to dispute this
`aspect of our construction, at least with respect to claims 1 and 6, neither of
`which is at issue in this proceeding. PO Resp. 17–18. Nevertheless, neither
`party argues that any factual dispute turns on this aspect of our construction.
`Thus, we need not address it further. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be
`construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy.”).
`
`
`2. “incremental hearing correction filter”
`In light of our construction of “hearing correction filter,” above, and
`additional description in the specification of “incremental hearing
`correction” (Ex. 1101, 3:24–36), we construed “incremental hearing
`correction filter” to mean 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. Dec. 10–12. The parties do not
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`raise additional disputes for this term beyond those raised for “hearing
`correction filter.” Accordingly, we maintain our construction of
`“incremental hearing correction filter” on the complete record.
`
`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.3 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
`
`
`3 The complete record does not include allegations or evidence of objective
`indicia of nonobviousness.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 22–28). Petitioner relies on the Atlas 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. Patent Owner does not propose an
`alternative. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill and find that it is
`consistent with the level of ordinary skill 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,
`we agree.
`
`
`a. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`(1) 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
`device gradually is increased from an initially low intensity to a target
`intensity. Id. at 1:19–26.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`18
`
`
`
`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.
`In the algorithm of Figure 2, 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 slowly during time C. Id. at 3:54–57. During time D, the user
`selects the APP to be two steps higher than the original audio processing
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`parameter, APPref, and X is increased faster. Id. at 3:58–61. During 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 rPOV1.
`Id. at 3:66–4:4. The user switches the hearing aid back on at time G and the
`APP is set to rPOV1 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. According to
`Fichtl, “[i]t is to be noted that the increase of the intermediate value X as
`well as the power-on-value POV is shown exaggerated for illustrative
`purposes. Usually, the acclimatization phase will take few weeks up to
`several months and not only one and a half days as in the example.” Id. at
`4:16–20.
`
`
`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:
`
`20
`
`
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`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
`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.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00782
`Patent 8,654,999 B2
`
`
`c. Differences Between the Claimed Subject Matter and
`the Prior Art, and Reasons to Modify or Combine
`(1) Claim 10
`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 identif