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 No. IPR2017-00929
`
`DECLARATION OF LES ATLAS, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,929,722
`
`HIMPP 1002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1(cid:1)
`I.(cid:1)
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 2(cid:1)
`II.(cid:1)
`III.(cid:1) Basis of Opinions ............................................................................................. 3(cid:1)
`IV.(cid:1) Understanding of Legal Principles .................................................................. 4(cid:1)
`V.(cid:1) Description of the Relevant Field and Relevant Timeframe ........................... 7(cid:1)
`VI.(cid:1) The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Field in the Relevant
`Timeframe ........................................................................................................ 8(cid:1)
`VII.(cid:1) The ’722 Patent (Ex. 1001) .............................................................................. 9(cid:1)
`VIII.(cid:1) Discussion of Relevant Prior Art Patents and Publications .......................... 10(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1) Moallemi ............................................................................................. 10(cid:1)
`B.(cid:1)
`Sommer................................................................................................ 11(cid:1)
`IX.(cid:1) Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 13(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1)
`“hearing assist device” ........................................................................ 14(cid:1)
`B.(cid:1)
`“coprocessor device” ........................................................................... 15(cid:1)
`C.(cid:1)
`“functionality” ..................................................................................... 15(cid:1)
`D.(cid:1)
`“module” ............................................................................................. 17(cid:1)
`Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-16, 20-25, 29, and 30 are Anticipated by
`Moallemi (Ex. 1004) ...................................................................................... 17(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1)
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 17(cid:1)
`1.(cid:1)
`[1.1] “One or more processor-readable storage media containing
`instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform acts
`comprising . . .” ............................................................................ 17(cid:1)
`[1.2] “detecting a coprocessor device” ......................................... 19(cid:1)
`[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
`
`2.(cid:1)
`3.(cid:1)
`
`X.(cid:1)
`
`i
`
`

`

`4.(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`
`coprocessor device or a signal processing functionality present on
`the coprocessor device is enhanced on the hearing assist device”21(cid:1)
`[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” ................................................................ 24(cid:1)
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 26(cid:1)
`1.(cid:1)
`[2.1] “One or more processor-readable storage media of claim 1,
`further comprising: detecting an additional coprocessor device” 26(cid:1)
`[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” ............................................... 26(cid:1)
`[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”28(cid:1)
`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” .................. 28(cid:1)
`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” ....... 29(cid:1)
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 30(cid:1)
`1.(cid:1)
`[8.1] “A method comprising: detecting a coprocessor device” ... 30(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`ii
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1)
`
`E.(cid:1)
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`F.(cid:1)
`
`G.(cid:1)
`
`H.(cid:1)
`
`I.(cid:1)
`
`J.(cid:1)
`
`K.(cid:1)
`
`[8.2] “comparing a functionality of the coprocessor device to a
`functionality of a hearing assist device” ...................................... 30(cid:1)
`[8.3] “directing a signal to at least one of the hearing assist device
`or the coprocessor device” ........................................................... 30(cid:1)
`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” .................................................................................................. 31(cid:1)
`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” ......................... 32(cid:1)
`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” .................... 33(cid:1)
`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” ................................................................................................. 34(cid:1)
`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 device and the
`coprocessor device, wherein the processed signal is processed
`in part by the coprocessor device” ...................................................... 35(cid:1)
`Claim 20. ............................................................................................. 35(cid:1)
`1.(cid:1)
`[20.1] “A hearing assist device comprising: a sensor configured to
`detect energy in the form of sound waves” .................................. 35(cid:1)
`[20.2] “A converter configured to convert the detected energy into
`a signal” ........................................................................................ 36(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`4.(cid:1)
`
`5.(cid:1)
`
`6.(cid:1)
`
`7.(cid:1)
`
`8.(cid:1)
`
`9.(cid:1)
`
`[20.3] “A memory configured to store one or more signal
`processing algorithms” ................................................................. 36(cid:1)
`[20.4] “A processor configured to execute one or more of the
`signal processing algorithms to process the signal” ..................... 37(cid:1)
`[20.5] “A communication interface configured to communicate
`with a coprocessor device” ........................................................... 37(cid:1)
`[20.6] “A handshaking module configured to receive information
`regarding a functionality of the coprocessor device via the
`communication interface” ............................................................ 38(cid:1)
`[20.7] “A functionality comparing module configured to compare
`the functionality of the coprocessor device to a functionality of
`the hearing assist device” ............................................................. 39(cid:1)
`[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” .................................... 40(cid:1)
`[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” ...................................................................... 40(cid:1)
`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” ............................................................................. 41(cid:1)
`M.(cid:1) 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” ............................................................................. 42(cid:1)
`Claim 23 – “hearing assist device of claim 20, wherein the
`stimulator comprises one of a speaker or a cochlear implant” ........... 42(cid:1)
`Claim 24. ............................................................................................. 42(cid:1)
`1.(cid:1)
`[24.1] “A coprocessor device comprising . . .” ............................ 42(cid:1)
`2.(cid:1)
`[24.2] “A memory configured to store one or more signal
`processing algorithms” ................................................................. 42(cid:1)
`[24.3] “A processor configured execute one or more of the signal
`processing algorithms to process a signal” .................................. 43(cid:1)
`
`N.(cid:1)
`
`L.(cid:1)
`
`O.(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`
`
`4.(cid:1)
`
`5.(cid:1)
`
`P.(cid:1)
`
`Q.(cid:1)
`
`[24.4] “A communication interface configured to communicate
`with at least one of a hearing assist device or an additional
`coprocessor device” ...................................................................... 43(cid:1)
`[24.5] “A handshaking module configured to send information
`regarding a functionality of the coprocessor to a hearing assist
`device via the communication interface” ..................................... 44(cid:1)
`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” ............................................................. 45(cid:1)
`Claim 29 – “coprocessor device of claim 24, wherein the
`communication interface is configured to receive an indication
`of a functionality of the 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” .......................................................................... 46(cid:1)
`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” .............................. 47(cid:1)
`XI.(cid:1) Claims 4 and 5 are Obvious Over Moallemi (Ex. 1004) ............................... 47(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1)
`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” .......................................... 47(cid:1)
`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” ......... 49(cid:1)
`XII.(cid:1) Claims 26-28 are Obvious over Moallemi (Ex. 1004) in view of Sommer
`(Ex. 1005) ...................................................................................................... 50(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1)
`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
`
`R.(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`v
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`
`
`the plurality of processed signals to each respective one of the
`plurality of hearing assist devices” ..................................................... 50(cid:1)
`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” ............................................. 53(cid:1)
`Claim 28 – “coprocessor device of claim 27, wherein the sensor
`comprises a microphone” .................................................................... 54(cid:1)
`XIII.(cid:1) Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 55(cid:1)
`
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1)
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`
`I, Les Atlas, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Les Atlas, Ph.D. I have been asked to opine on the
`
`patentability of U.S. Patent 7,929,722 by Shridhar et al. (“the ’722 patent”),
`
`entitled “Hearing Assistance Using an External Coprocessor.” My opinions are set
`
`forth herein. I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and I am
`
`competent to testify about the matters set forth herein. I submit this declaration in
`
`support of K/S HIMPP’s Petition for Inter Partes Review, which I have read and
`
`fully support as if my own.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for K/S HIMPP (“Petitioner”) to serve
`
`as a technical expert in this Inter Partes Review proceeding. I have been asked to
`
`provide expert testimony in this declaration regarding the patentability of the
`
`claims of the ’722 patent and the grounds of unpatentability upon which the Inter
`
`Partes Review petition are based.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my normal hourly rate of $270
`
`and for reasonable expenses incurred in preparing this declaration.
`
`4. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`5.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’722 patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`6. My academic credentials include a B.S. in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the University of Wisconsin and a M.S. and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering
`
`from Stanford University. I am a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and have been and remain active as an electrical
`
`engineering, hearing, and speech science university faculty educator and
`
`researcher. My work and impact in hearing research goes back to 35 years ago
`
`when I designed the world’s first portable speech processor for cochlear implants.
`
`This then-new technology was like a hearing aid, except that it used electrical
`
`stimulation of the inner ear to treat patients who were profoundly deaf, that is
`
`could not hear at all, even with a sound amplification hearing aid. This cochlear
`
`implant technology has since become a common form of treatment, and is used by
`
`over 190,000 users worldwide. Cochlear implant technology and regular hearing
`
`aids share challenges such as sound shaping, frequency filtering, and range of
`
`amplification, along with portability. That is, both have small external processors
`
`where sounds are conditioned, often with parameters which are customized for
`
`each patient. More recently, since about 2004, I have addressed the lack of rich
`
`music perception and challenges for speech perception with noisy background by
`
`both hearing aid and cochlear implant users. My innovations resulted in several
`
`key publications, such as the May 2008 issue of Hearing Research, where our
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`paper “Improving performance in noise for hearing aids and cochlear implants
`
`using coherent modulation filtering,” was featured on the cover of this issue. The
`
`work described in this paper resulted in my 2012 Bloedel Scholar Award, given
`
`out by the Bloedel Speech and Hearing Research Institute. It also resulted in 2014-
`
`16 research grants from the Coulter Foundation. The approach described in the
`
`paper came from my decades of more theoretical work in time-frequency analysis.
`
`That work resulted in my election to the high level of Fellow of the IEEE “[f]or
`
`contributions to time-varying spectral analysis and acoustical signal processing.”
`
`This approach was also used to modernize music coding for all listeners
`
`worldwide. Our coherent modulation approach resulted in my 2003 Fulbright
`
`Award, where I spent 6 months at the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany and then 3
`
`months in Cambridge England. Since then (2003) my commitment to solving
`
`challenges facing perception of music and speech in noise in cochlear implant
`
`patients has resulted in more publications and progress in those needed research
`
`directions.
`
`7. My latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached to this declaration as an
`
`Appendix A.
`
`III. BASIS OF OPINIONS
`8.
`I have reviewed the specification and claims of the ’722 patent. ’722
`
`patent, Ex. 1001.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`I have also reviewed the following references, all of which I
`
`9.
`
`understand to be prior art to the ’722 patent:
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0254728 to Moallemi et al.
`(“Moallemi,” Ex. 1004);
`
`(cid:120) WIPO Publication No. WO2006/117365 to Sommer et al. (“Sommer,”
`Ex. 1005).
`
`10.
`
`In addition to the documents listed above, I have also reviewed parts
`
`of the file history of the ’722 patent, the accompanying petition, all of the
`
`documents listed in Petitioner’s List of Exhibits in the accompanying petition, and
`
`all of the documents cited in this Declaration.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`11.
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law was provided to me by Petitioner’s attorneys.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’722 patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’722 patent. I have applied the date of August 13, 2008,
`
`the earliest possible filing date of the earliest provisional patent application to
`
`which the ’722 patent claims priority, as the priority date, although the ’722 patent
`
`may actually not be entitled to such an early priority date. My opinions regarding
`
`the ’722 patent and the unpatentability of its claims are the same regardless of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`whether the earliest priority date of the ’722 patent is August 13, 2008 (filing date
`
`of the provisional application no. 61/188,840) or November 18, 2008 (filing date of
`
`application no. 12/273,389).
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time the alleged invention
`
`was made. I understand that a claim could have been obvious from a single prior
`
`art reference or from a combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`15.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the
`
`alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus,
`
`that is, a connection, between any such secondary considerations and the alleged
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`invention. I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by
`
`others is a secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`16.
`
`I further understand that a claim would have been obvious if it unites
`
`old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by
`
`mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, and that
`
`combination yields predictable results. Also, I understand that obviousness does
`
`not require physical combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of
`
`what the combined teachings would have suggested to persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`17. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this combination, I
`
`understand that there is no rigid requirement of finding an express teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine within the references. When a product is
`
`available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`
`either in the same field or a different one. If a POSA can implement a predictable
`
`variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a
`
`technique has been used to improve one device and a POSA would recognize that
`
`it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique would have
`
`been obvious. I understand that a claim would have been obvious if a POSA
`
`would have had reason to combine multiple prior art references or add missing
`
`features to reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventors of the ’722
`
`18.
`
`patent or any assignee of the ’722 patent that any secondary considerations tend to
`
`rebut the obviousness of any claim of the ’722 patent discussed in this declaration.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that other challenges to the validity of a patent, including
`
`patent ineligibility, enablement, written description, and definiteness, cannot be
`
`raised in IPR proceedings before the Board to challenge the validity of the ’722
`
`patent. Accordingly, I did not consider those other challenges.
`
`21. The analysis in this declaration is in accordance with the above-stated
`
`legal principles.
`
`V. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND RELEVANT
`TIMEFRAME
`22. The ’722 patent was issued to Vasant Shridhar, et al. on April 19,
`
`2011. I have been informed that the ’722 patent claims priority to Provisional
`
`Application No. 61/188,840 filed on August 13, 2008.
`
`23.
`
`I have carefully reviewed the ’722 patent and portions of its file
`
`history.
`
`24. Based on my review of this material, I believe that the relevant field
`
`for the purposes of the ’722 patent is hearing aid systems. I have been informed
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`that the relevant time frame is before August 13, 2008, which is the filing date of
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/188,840, although the ’722 patent may
`
`actually not be entitled to 61/188,840 as such an early priority date.
`
`25. As described above and as shown in my CV, I have extensive
`
`experience in the relevant field. Based on my experience, I have a good
`
`understanding of the relevant field in the relevant timeframe and the skills
`
`possessed by those of ordinary skill at the time.
`
`VI. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD
`IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`26.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record, and that a POSA to which the claimed subject matter pertains
`
`would have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering
`
`principles applicable to the pertinent art. I understand that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art has ordinary creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`27.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention, (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology, (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems. There are likely a wide range of
`
`educational backgrounds in the technology fields pertinent to the ’722 patent.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`28. The ’722 patent relates to the technical field of hearing aid systems.
`
`More specifically, the field includes hearing aids capable of functioning together
`
`with coprocessors. A POSA at the time of the alleged invention of the ’722 patent
`
`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. Graduate
`
`education could substitute for work experience, and additional work
`
`experience/training could substitute for formal education. As described in more
`
`detail above in ¶ 6, I would have been a person with at least ordinary skill in the art
`
`of the ’722 patent as of the time of its alleged invention.
`
`VII. THE ’722 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`29. The ’722 patent is directed to a system with distributed processing
`
`between a hearing assist device and a detected coprocessor device such as a
`
`smartphone or laptop computer. According to the named inventors of the ’722
`
`patent, the small size of hearing assist devices “limits functionality”, such as “short
`
`battery life, low powered processors, and weak signal processing algorithms”. Ex.
`
`1001, ’722 patent, 2:30-32. The hearing assist device can function as a stand-alone
`
`device, or can be paired with the coprocessor device (Ex. 1001, ’722 patent, 3:1-3),
`
`in which case a comparison is performed to determine whether to assign a
`
`processing functionality to either the hearing assist device or the coprocessor
`
`device.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`VIII. DISCUSSION OF RELEVANT PRIOR ART PATENTS AND
`PUBLICATIONS
`A. Moallemi
`30. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0254728 to Moallemi et al.
`
`(“Moallemi”) was filed April 26, 2007 and published November 1, 2007. Ex.
`
`1004, Moallemi. I have been informed Moallemi is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`31. Moallemi discloses devices 102 that each include a processor 202 in
`
`communication with a memory 204. Ex. 1004, Moallemi, ¶ 21, Fig. 2. The
`
`devices 102 communicate via links 106. Id., ¶ 17, Fig. 1. The devices 102 include
`
`a “headset (e.g., headphones, an earpiece, etc.),” a “hearing aid,” a mobile
`
`telephone, a personal digital assistance, and/or a laptop computer. Id., ¶¶ 17, 24.
`
`32. Moallemi discloses the dynamic assignment of functionality in its
`
`wireless network based on comparing a functionality of the coprocessor device to a
`
`functionality of its hearing assist device. Namely, Moallemi teaches that
`
`functionality should be dynamically assigned from a first device to a second “more
`
`capable” device, such as if the second device has more “data processing
`
`resources”, Ex. 1004, Moallemi, ¶ 31, or can “more efficiently receive and store
`
`the data” or has “greater storage capacity.” Id., ¶ 36. Moallemi’s determination of
`
`which device is “more capable” involves comparing the capabilities of the two
`
`devices. Id., ¶ 31. Moallemi’s determination of which device has more “data
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`processing resources” is comparing the data processing resources of the two
`
`devices. Id. As stated in Moallemi, “functionality can be shifted to devices that
`
`are more efficient, or which can more efficiently perform the particular function at
`
`a particular time.” Id., ¶ 39.
`
`B.
`Sommer
`33. WIPO Publication No. WO2006/117365 to Sommer et al.
`
`(“Sommer”) was published November 9, 2006. Ex. 1005, Sommer. I have been
`
`informed that Sommer is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`34. Sommer is directed to sharing network resources between hearing
`
`devices by enabling hearing devices to access shared, common services. Ex. 1005,
`
`Sommer, 1:5-10, 2:30-33.
`
`35. Sommer discloses a plurality of hearing devices 106 in
`
`communication with a server device 112 for providing services such as an
`
`environment service for reducing background noise experienced by the hearing
`
`devices 106. Ex. 1005, Sommer, 10:10-11:20, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1005, Sommer, Fig. 1
`36. The server device may incorporate an environment service provider.
`
`Ex. 1005, Sommer, 8:29-30. The environment service provider may receive from
`
`a hearing device an “environment signal” comprising amplitude and frequency
`
`data relating to acoustic background noise at a location of a hearing device,
`
`generate an “environment compensation signal” that is a phase-shifted version of
`
`the environment signal, and send the environment compensation signal to the
`
`hearing device to be incorporated in the audio signal presented to the hearing
`
`device user to mask the acoustic background noise. Id., 8:5-23, 11:22-27, 12:5-18.
`
`The environment service provider may include an environment memory bank
`
`storing environment compensation signals each associated with a predefined noise
`
`situation. Id., 8:23-27.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,929,722
`Declaration of Les Atlas, Ph.D.
`37. Sommer discloses hearing devices that include “acoustic environment
`
`detectors” that generate the environment signals relating to the background noise.
`
`E