Filed via PTAB E2E on February 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 2212665-00120US10
`Filed on behalf of K/S HIMPP
`By: Donald R. Steinberg, Reg. No 37,241
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`Haixia Lin, Reg. No. 61,318
`Christopher R. O’Brien, Reg. No. 63,208
`Vera A. Shmidt 74,944
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA
`Email: Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`Haixia.Lin@wilmerhale.com
`Christopher.O’Brien@wilmerhale.com
`Vera.Shmidt@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`K/S HIMPP
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`III HOLDINGS 7, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00929
`Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-16,
`AND 20-30 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,929,722
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 160616660v.6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................. 1 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..................................... 1 
`
`B.  Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 2 
`
`C.  Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................................... 2 
`
`D.  Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................ 2 
`
`III. 
`
`Payment of Fees ............................................................................................. 3 
`
`IV. 
`
`Requirements for Inter Partes Review........................................................... 3 
`
`A.  Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ....................................... 3 
`
`B. 
`
`Identification of the Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ........................ 3 
`
`1.  The Specific Art on Which the Challenge is Based ................................... 4 
`
`2.  The Specific Grounds on Which the Challenge is Based .......................... 4 
`
`V. 
`
`Background of the ’722 Patent, State of the Art Prior to the Relevant Date,
`
`and Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................................... 5 
`
`A.  Summary of the ’722 Patent ........................................................................... 5 
`
`B.  The Prosecution History of the ’722 Patent ................................................... 5 
`
`C.  Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 6 
`
`VI. 
`
`Claim Construction - 37 CFR § 41.104(b)(3) ................................................ 6 
`
`A.  Legal Overview .............................................................................................. 6 
`
`B.  Terms .............................................................................................................. 7 
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`Page ii
`
`

`

`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`“Hearing Assist Device” ............................................................................. 7 
`
`“Coprocessor Device” ................................................................................ 8 
`
`“Functionality” ........................................................................................... 8 
`
`“Module” .................................................................................................... 9 
`
`VII.  Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-16, 20-25, 29, and 30 are Anticipated
`
`by Moallemi (Ex. 1004) ........................................................................................... 10 
`
`A.  Claim 1. ........................................................................................................ 10 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`[1.1] “One or more processor-readable storage media containing
`instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform acts comprising
`. . .” ........................................................................................................... 10 
`
`[1.2] “Detecting a coprocessor device” ................................................... 12 
`
`[1.3] “Comparing a functionality of a hearing assist device to a
`functionality of the coprocessor device to determine if: a signal
`processing functionality absent from the hearing assist device is available
`on the coprocessor device or a signal processing functionality absent
`from the coprocessor device is available on the hearing assist device; or a
`signal processing functionality present on the hearing assist device is
`enhanced on the coprocessor device or a signal processing functionality
`present on the coprocessor device is enhanced on the hearing assist
`device”. ..................................................................................................... 14 
`
`4. 
`
`[1.4] “Directing a signal obtained at the hearing assist device for at least
`partial processing to at least one the hearing assist device or the
`coprocessor device” .................................................................................. 18 
`
`B.  Claim 2 ......................................................................................................... 19 
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`[2.1] “One or more processor-readable storage media of claim 1, further
`comprising: detecting an additional coprocessor device” ........................ 19 
`
`[2.2] “Comparing the functionality of at least one of the hearing assist
`device or the coprocessor device to the additional coprocessor device to
`determine if: a signal processing functionality absent from one of the
`hearing assist device, the coprocessor device, or the additional
`coprocessor device is available on the hearing assist device, the
`coprocessor device, or the additional coprocessor device; or a signal
`processing functionality present on one of the hearing assist device, the
`coprocessor device, or the additional coprocessor device is enhanced on
`the hearing assist device, the coprocessor device, or the additional
`coprocessor device” .................................................................................. 20 
`
`3. 
`
`[2.3] “Directing the signal obtained at the hearing assist device for at
`least partial processing to at least one the hearing assist device or the
`coprocessor device, or the additional coprocessor device” ...................... 21 
`
`C.  Claim 3 – “one or more processor-readable storage media of claim 1,
`wherein the signal processing functionality present on the hearing assist
`device is enhanced on the coprocessor device or the [sic, an] additional
`coprocessor device, the enhancement comprising at least one of an
`enhanced signal processing algorithm or an enhanced processing capability
`of the coprocessor device or the additional coprocessor device” ................ 22 
`
`D.  Claim 7 – “one or more processor-readable storage media of claim 1,
`wherein the signal is processed at least partially in series by a plurality of
`the hearing assist device, the coprocessor device, or the [sic] one or more
`additional coprocessor devices” ................................................................... 23 
`
`E.  Claim 8 ......................................................................................................... 24 
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`Page iv
`
`

`

`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`[8.1] “A method comprising: detecting a coprocessor device” ................ 24 
`
`[8.2] “Comparing a functionality of the coprocessor device to a
`functionality of a hearing assist device” ................................................... 24 
`
`[8.3] “Directing a signal to at least one of the hearing assist device or the
`coprocessor device” .................................................................................. 24 
`
`F.  Claim 11 – “method of claim 8, wherein the directing is based on at least
`one of: an availability of the coprocessor device; a user input; or a
`determination that, based on the comparing, the coprocessor device has a
`necessary functionality to process the signal” ............................................. 24 
`
`G.  Claim 12 – “method of claim 8, wherein the functionality of the
`coprocessor device and the functionality of the hearing assist device each
`comprise at least one of: a processor speed; a processor load; a processor
`capability; a memory capacity; a memory capability; an available signal
`processing algorithm; an ability to enhance a signal processing algorithm; a
`sensor capability; or a strength of a communication signal” ....................... 25 
`
`H.  Claim 14 – “method of claim 8, further comprising processing the signal at
`least in part by the hearing assist device if the directing directs the signal to
`the hearing assist device” ............................................................................. 26 
`
`I. 
`
`Claim 15 – “method of claim 8, further comprising receiving a processed
`signal from the coprocessor device if the directing directs the signal to the
`coprocessor device, wherein the processed signal is processed at least in
`part by the coprocessor device” ................................................................... 27 
`
`J.  Claim 16 – “method of claim 8, further comprising: processing the signal in
`part by the hearing assist device and receiving a processed signal from the
`coprocessor device if the directing directs the signal to the hearing assist
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page v
`
`

`

`device and the coprocessor device, wherein the processed signal is
`processed in part by the coprocessor device” .............................................. 28 
`
`K.  Claim 20. ...................................................................................................... 29 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`[20.1] “A hearing assist device comprising: a sensor configured to detect
`energy in the form of sound waves” ......................................................... 29 
`
`[20.2] “A converter configured to convert the detected energy into a
`signal” ....................................................................................................... 29 
`
`[20.3] “A memory configured to store one or more signal processing
`algorithms” ............................................................................................... 30 
`
`[20.4] “A processor configured to execute one or more of the signal
`processing algorithms to process the signal” ........................................... 30 
`
`[20.5] “A communication interface configured to communicate with a
`coprocessor device” .................................................................................. 31 
`
`[20.6] “A handshaking module configured to receive information
`regarding a functionality of the coprocessor device via the
`communication interface” ........................................................................ 31 
`
`[20.7] “A functionality comparing module configured to compare the
`functionality of the coprocessor device to a functionality of the hearing
`assist device” ............................................................................................ 32 
`
`[20.8] “A processor switching module configured to direct the signal to at
`least one of the processor of the hearing assist device or a processor of
`the coprocessor device” ............................................................................ 33 
`
`9. 
`
`[20.9] “A stimulator configured to stimulate an auditory nerve of a user
`based on the signal as processed by at least one of the processor of the
`hearing assist device or the processor of the coprocessor device” ........... 33 
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`Page vi
`
`

`

`L.  Claim 21 – “hearing assist device of claim 20, wherein the handshaking
`module is further configured to send information regarding the functionality
`of the hearing assist device to the coprocessor device” ............................... 34 
`
`M.  Claim 22 – “hearing assist device of claim 20, wherein the processor
`switching module is configured to direct the signal based on a comparison
`performed by the functionality comparing module” .................................... 35 
`
`N.  Claim 23 – “hearing assist device of claim 20, wherein the stimulator
`comprises one of a speaker or a cochlear implant” ...................................... 35 
`
`O.  Claim 24. ...................................................................................................... 35 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`[24.1] “A coprocessor device comprising . . .” ........................................ 35 
`
`[24.2] “A memory configured to store one or more signal processing
`algorithms” ............................................................................................... 35 
`
`[24.3] “A processor configured execute one or more of the signal
`processing algorithms to process a signal” .............................................. 36 
`
`[24.4] “A communication interface configured to communicate with at
`least one of a hearing assist device or an additional coprocessor
`device” ...................................................................................................... 36 
`
`[24.5] “A handshaking module configured to send information regarding
`a functionality of the coprocessor to a hearing assist device via the
`communication interface” ........................................................................ 37 
`
`P.  Claim 25 - “coprocessor device of claim 24, wherein the communication
`interface receives the signal from the hearing assist device and the
`processor processes the signal using the signal processing algorithms” ..... 38 
`
`Q.  Claim 29 – “coprocessor device of claim 24, wherein the communication
`interface is configured to receive an indication of a functionality of the
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`Page vii
`
`

`

`hearing assist device and an indication of a desired processing for the
`signal, and to send the signal processed by the processing module [sic,
`processor] to the hearing assist device” ....................................................... 39 
`
`R.  Claim 30 – “coprocessor device of claim 24, wherein the functionality
`comprises at least one of availability of coprocessor device, processor
`speed, processor capability, memory capacity, memory capability, signal
`processing algorithms available on the coprocessor device, a number of
`sensors, or a strength of a communication signal” ....................................... 40 
`
`VIII.  Ground 2: Claims 4 and 5 are Obvious Over Moallemi (Ex. 1004) ............ 40 
`
`A.  Claim 4 – “one or more processor-readable storage media of claim 1,
`further comprising repeating the comparing if at least a one of the
`coprocessor device or the [sic, an] additional coprocessor device is no
`longer detected” ............................................................................................ 40 
`
`B.  Claim 5 – “one or more processor-readable storage media of claim 1,
`wherein the directing directs the signal to the hearing assist device for
`processing if the coprocessor device and the [sic, an] additional coprocessor
`device are no longer detected” ..................................................................... 42 
`
`IX.  Ground 3: Claims 26-28 are Obvious over Moallemi (Ex. 1004) in view of
`
`Sommer (Ex. 1005) .................................................................................................. 43 
`
`A.  Claim 26 – “coprocessor device of claim 24, wherein the processor is
`further configured to process a plurality of signals received from a plurality
`of hearing assist devices and to send the plurality of processed signals to
`each respective one of the plurality of hearing assist devices” .................... 43 
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page viii
`
`

`

`B.  Claim 27 – “coprocessor device of claim 24, further comprising a sensor
`configured to provide additional information used at least in part in
`processing of the signal” .............................................................................. 46 
`
`C.  Claim 28 – “coprocessor device of claim 27, wherein the sensor comprises
`a microphone” .............................................................................................. 47 
`
`X. 
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................... 47 
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page ix
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`K/S HIMPP (“Petitioner”), in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 and 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq., respectfully requests inter partes review of claims 1-5, 7,
`
`8, 11, 12, 14-16, and 20-30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722 (“the ’722 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001) assigned to III Holdings 7, LLC (“Patent Owner”) via assignment record at
`
`Reel/Frame: 037950/0909. This Petition shows by at least a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on proving
`
`that claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-16, and 20-30 of the ’722 patent are unpatentable
`
`based on prior art that the Office did not have before it during prosecution.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), Petitioner provides the following
`
`mandatory disclosures:
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Petitioner K/S HIMPP is a real party-in-interest. For purposes of this
`
`Petition and for the avoidance of disputes, Petitioner identifies HIMPP members
`
`and affiliates GN Hearing A/S (formerly GN Resound A/S) and GN Store Nord
`
`A/S; IntriCon Corporation; Sivantos GmbH and Sivantos Inc.; Sonova Holding AG
`
`and Sonova AG (formerly Phonak AG); Starkey Laboratories, Inc. (aka Starkey
`
`Hearing Technologies); Widex A/S; and William Demant Holding A/S as
`
`additional real parties-in-interest.
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Petitioner is not aware of any other matters related to the ’722 patent.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Lead Counsel: Donald R. Steinberg (Reg. No. 37,241)
`
`First Backup Counsel: Yung-Hoon Ha (Reg. No. 56,368)
`
`Backup Counsel: Haixia Lin (Reg. No. 61,318); Christopher R. O’Brien
`
`(Reg. No. 63,208); Vera A. Shmidt (Reg. No. 74,944)
`
`D. Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`Email: Donald R. Steinberg, Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com;
`
`
`
`Haixia Lin, Haixia.Lin@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Christopher O’Brien, Christopher.O’Brien@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Vera Schmidt, Vera.Schmidt@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Yung-Hoon Ha Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and Hand Delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`60 State St., Boston MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6000
`
`
`
`
`
`Facsimile: 617-526-5000
`
`Petitioner consents to email delivery on lead, first backup, and backup
`
`counsel.
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`III. Payment of Fees
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition for inter partes review to Deposit Account
`
`No. 080219. Any additional fees that might be due are also authorized.
`
`IV. Requirements for Inter Partes Review
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’722 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter
`
`partes review challenging the patent claims of the ’722 patent on the grounds
`
`identified herein.
`
`B.
`Identification of the Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-16, and
`
`20-30 of the ’722 patent and that the Board cancel the same as unpatentable.
`
`Petitioner asks that each claim be found unpatentable. The ’722 patent claims
`
`priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/188,840, filed on August 13,
`
`2008. Ex. 1001, ’722 patent.1
`
`
`1 As described below, the prior art relied on in this Petition predates the provisional
`
`date cited on the front of the ’722 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this
`
`Petition, Petitioner assumes, without taking a position, that the ’722 patent is
`
`entitled to the filing date of the provisional application. However, Petitioner
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`1. The Specific Art on Which the Challenge is Based
`Petitioner relies upon the following patents and printed publications
`
`Exhibit 1004 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0254728 to Moallemi et
`
`al. (“Moallemi”), filed April 26, 2007 and published November 1, 2007, is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`Exhibit 1005 – WIPO Publication No. WO2006/117365 to Sommer et al.
`
`(“Sommer”), published November 9, 2006 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`2. The Specific Grounds on Which the Challenge is Based
`Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-
`
`16, and 20-30 of the ’722 patent on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`’722 patent claims
`
`Basis
`
`Ground 1 1-3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-
`
`Anticipated under § 102(b) by Moallemi (Ex.
`
`16, 20-25, 29, and 30
`
`1004)
`
`Ground 2 4 and 5
`
`Ground 3 26-28
`
`Obvious under § 103 over Moallemi (Ex. 1004)
`
`Obvious under § 103 over Moallemi (Ex. 1004)
`
`in view of Sommer (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`reserves the right to argue in later proceedings (before the USPTO or other
`
`tribunals) that the subject matter claimed in the ’722 patent is unsupported by the
`
`provisional patent application.
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) and (5), Sections VII-IX demonstrate
`
`that claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-16, and 20-30 of the ’722 patent are unpatentable.
`
`V. Background of the ’722 Patent, State of the Art Prior to the Relevant
`Date, and Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A. Summary of the ’722 Patent
`The ’722 patent is directed to a hearing assist device capable of functioning
`
`with a coprocessor device. Ex. 1001, ’722 patent, 1:11-14. The hearing assist
`
`device is capable of stand-alone signal processing (Id., Abstract), and can be a
`
`hearing aid or other apparatus or component used to distinguish or enhance sound
`
`for users with or without hearing impairment. Id., 3:4-15. According to the ’722
`
`patent, hearing assist devices typically have a small size, and the “form-factor
`
`constraint is apparent in short battery life, low powered processors, and weak
`
`signal processing algorithms” which can be improved by using a coprocessor
`
`device. Id., 1:28-60. When a coprocessor device is detected, a functionality of the
`
`coprocessor device can be utilized to improve the performance of the hearing assist
`
`device.
`
`B. The Prosecution History of the ’722 Patent
`The ’722 patent was filed November 18, 2008 containing 31 claims, with
`
`each independent claim requiring comparing a functionality of the coprocessor
`
`device to a functionality of a hearing assist device. Ex. 1003, ’722 patent file
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`history, 40-48. On February 3, 2011, a Notice of Allowance allowing all 31
`
`original claims was mailed, without any discussion of the prior art or reasons for
`
`allowance, resulting in issuance of the ’722 patent on April 19, 2011. Ex. 1003,
`
`’722 patent file history, 101-106.
`
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art. See In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board did
`
`not err in adopting the approach that the level of skill in the art was best
`
`determined by references of record). The prior art discussed herein, and in the
`
`declaration of Dr. Les Atlas, demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) in the field of the ’722 patent 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 hearing aid systems. Graduate education could
`
`substitute for work experience, and additional work experience/training could
`
`substitute for formal education. Atlas Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 26-28.
`
`VI. Claim Construction - 37 CFR § 41.104(b)(3)
`A. Legal Overview
`In an IPR, the terms in the challenged claims should be given their plain
`
`meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Cuozzo Speed
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2145-46 (2016). If the specification
`
`sets forth an alternate definition of a term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`Page 6
`
`

`

`and precision, the patentee’s lexicography governs. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
`
`1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner adopts this standard for this proceeding, but
`
`reserves the right to pursue different constructions in a district court, where
`
`different claim construction standards apply.
`
`Should the Patent Owner, seeking to avoid the prior art, contend that the
`
`claim terms have a construction different from their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the
`
`claims to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,764, 68,766-767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Any claim terms not included in this section have their broadest reasonable
`
`meaning in light of the specification as commonly understood by those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`B. Terms
`1. “Hearing Assist Device”
`The ’722 patent describes a “hearing assist device” as a “device[] used to
`
`enhance sound for users with or without hearing impairment.” Ex. 1001, ’722
`
`patent, 3:13-15. For example, a hearing assist device may be a “hearing aid” that
`
`“provides sound enhancement to a user with diminished hearing capacity” or a
`
`device that allows a user without hearing impairment to distinguish or detect
`
`particular noises. Id., 3:4-12. Thus, the term “hearing assist device” should be
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`construed to include at least a device used to enhance sound for users with or
`
`without hearing impairment. Atlas Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 41.
`
`2. “Coprocessor Device”
`The ’722 patent describes overcoming the “form-factor constraints inherent
`
`in hearing aids” by “leveraging the processing power of an additional processor,
`
`such as a coprocessor, which does not suffer from the same form-factor
`
`constraints.” Ex. 1001, ’722 patent, 2:44-48. Exemplary coprocessors for
`
`providing “[p]rocessing power superior to that provided by conventional hearing
`
`aids” include “mobile phones, personal digital assistants, electronic music players,
`
`desktop and laptop computers, game consoles, television set-top-boxes, automobile
`
`radios, [and] navigation systems.” Id., 2:48-55. Alternatively, the coprocessor
`
`may be “a device specially designed to function together with a hearing aid.” Id.,
`
`2:55-57. Thus, the term “coprocessor device” should be construed to include at
`
`least a device that includes a processor for providing additional processing power.
`
`Atlas Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 42.
`
`3. “Functionality”
`The ’722 patent describes comparing a functionality of a hearing assist
`
`device to a functionality of a coprocessor device because “[i]n some instances the
`
`coprocessor device may have different capabilities than the hearing assist device.”
`
`Ex. 1001, ’722 patent, 2:3-7. The ’722 patent states that “[t]he functionalities
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`compared may include, but are not limited to, a processor speed, a processor load,
`
`a processor capability (e.g., graphics rendering), a memory capacity, a memory
`
`capability (e.g., access speed), an available signal processing algorithm, an
`
`enhancement of a signal processing algorithm, a sensor capability, and a strength
`
`of a communication signal.” Id., 9:8-14. The ’722 patent explains functionality
`
`limitations of hearing aids, stating: “the small size of hearing aids limits
`
`functionality. This form-factor constraint is apparent in short battery life, low
`
`powered processors, and weak signal processing algorithms.” Id., 1:30-32. Thus
`
`battery life, processor power, and quality of signal processing algorithms are also
`
`“functionalities.” Thus, the term “functionality” should be construed to be a
`
`device capability, including at least a processor speed, a processor load, a
`
`processor capability such as graphics rendering, a memory capacity, a memory
`
`capability such as access speed, an available signal processing algorithm, an
`
`enhancement of a signal processing algorithm, a sensor capability, a strength of a
`
`communication signal, battery life, processor power, and/or quality of signal
`
`processing algorithms. Atlas Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 43.
`
`4. “Module”
`The ’722 patent notes that “all modules may be implemented as appropriate
`
`in hardware, software, firmware, or combinations thereof.” Ex. 1001, ’722 patent,
`
`6:58-62. Thus, the term “module” should be construed to include hardware,
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`software, or firmware implementations, or combinations thereof. Atlas Decl., Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 44.
`
`VII. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-16, 20-25, 29, and 30 are
`Anticipated by Moallemi (Ex. 1004)
`A. Claim 1.
`1. [1.1] “One or more processor-readable storage media
`containing instructions that, when executed by a processor,
`perform acts comprising . . .”
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Moallemi discloses this limitation.
`
`Moallemi discloses devices 102 that each include a processor 202 in
`
`communication with a memory 204. Ex. 1004, Moallemi, ¶ 21, Fig. 2.
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Ex. 1004, Moallemi, Fig. 2
`
`
`
`Moallemi states that any of its disclosed “logical blocks, modules, and
`
`circuits” may be performed by an “integrated circuit” which may “execute codes
`
`or instructions.” Ex. 1004, Moallemi, ¶ 45; see also id., ¶ 46.2 Moallemi’s
`
`
`
`2 All emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`methods may be implemented as “a software module executed by a processor” and
`
`stored in a “storage medium [] coupled to the processor such that the processor can
`
`read information from, and write information to, the storage medium.” Id., ¶ 47.
`
`Accordingly, Moallemi’s devices 102 comprise one or more processor-readable
`
`storage media containing instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform
`
`acts (discussed below), fulfilling the claim preamble. Atlas Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 46-
`
`47.
`
`2. [1.2] “Detecting a coprocessor device”
`Moallemi discloses this limitation. Moallemi’s system includes both the
`
`claimed “hearing assist device” (described in the next limitation) and the claimed
`
`“coprocessor” device(s) among the devices 102 in its wireless network. Moallemi
`
`discloses that one of the devices 102 may be a “headset (e.g., headphones, an
`
`earpiece, etc.)” or a “hearing aid.” Ex. 1004, Moallemi, ¶ 24; see also id., ¶ 17.
`
`Both headsets and hearing aids are devices used to enhance sound for users and are
`
`therefore “hearing assist devices.” Moallemi discloses that another of its devices
`
`may be “devices 102a that comprise a longer range, e.g., mobile telephone,” one of
`
`the exact same coprocessor devices mentioned in the ’722 patent. Id., ¶ 17.
`
`Moallemi also discloses other devices 102 mentioned as coprocessor devices in the
`
`’722 patent, including a “personal digital assistant” and a “laptop computer,” as
`
`well as other devices. Id., ¶ 24. These other devices 102 include “a processor 202
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`that is in communication with a memory 204.” Id., ¶ 21. Functionality is
`
`distributed “between the devices 102 to better utilize . . . processing capabilities of
`
`the various devices 102.” Id., ¶ 31; see also id., Fig. 1 (elements 102a-d). Thus,
`
`these other devices 102 provide additional processing power and are thus
`
`“coprocessor” devices. Atlas Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 48.
`
`Ex. 1004, Moallemi, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`Petition – IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,722
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`I