EP 3 383 067 B1 relates to a hearing device for use in a binaural hearing system, designed to improve speech intelligibility in noisy or complex acoustic environments.
Beamformers operate in specific frequency bands, allowing the hearing device to focus on desired sounds, such as speech, while preserving spatial cues like ILD “interaural level difference” (ILD) and “interaural time difference” (ITD).
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR6.
Proprietor and opponent appealed the decision.
The MR and AR1-5 lacked IS. AR3 and 5 lacked clarity. AR 6 and 7 were not admitted under Art 13(2) RPBA.
The board thus revoked the patent.
We will concentrate on the lack of IS.
The proprietor’s point of view
The proprietor considered the CPA did not disclose the following underlined subject-matter in features (b), (e), (f), (g) and (h):
(b) a transceiver module for communication with a contralateral hearing device of the binaural hearing system, the transceiver module configured to obtain a contralateral beamform signal from the contralateral hearing device;
(e) a filter bank, connected to the first beamforming module and the transceiver module, for filtering the first beamform signal into a plurality of first sub-band beamform signals including a first bandpass beamform signal, and for filtering the contralateral beamform signal into a contralateral bandpass beamform signal;
(f) a second beamforming module connected to the filter bank, the second beamforming module comprising a bandpass beamformer for provision of a second bandpass beamform signal based on the first bandpass beamform signal and the contralateral bandpass beamform signal;
(g) an adder, connected to the bandpass beamformer, for provision of a beamformed input signal based on the second bandpass signal;
(h) a processor for processing the beamformed input signal and providing an electrical output signal based on the beamformed input signal.
With regard to the technical effect associated with these differences, the proprietor argued that the differences are inter-related and have the technical effect of provision of a hearing device with optimized beamforming to accommodate both selective/targeted listening and situational awareness.
The board’s decision
For the board, the technical effect suggested by the proprietor aligns with the “subjective” technical problem, i.e. the technical problem mentioned in the description.
However, this technical effect is not credibly achieved across the whole scope claimed. This is because features (a) to (j) do not concern any “optimized beamforming”, “selective/targeted listening” or “situational awareness”.
For instance, the “optimisation” of beamforming can involve many aspects, such as making the beamformer more accurate or robust, reducing the computational complexity involved, minimising energy consumption or improving user comfort.
None of the differences in subject-matter identified by the proprietor relates to any of these aspects.
The board considered that claim 1 as granted did not define the purpose of the “filter bank” according to feature (e) either, other than that the filter bank should provide a plurality of sub-band signals.
The board noted, that claim 1 as granted is silent as to the number of channels or any specific frequency ranges, e.g. those dedicated to speech. The “second beamforming module” according to feature (f) may well operate on broadband signals because claim 1 as granted does not require the second beamforming module to act on only the first and contralateral bandpass beamform signals.
By the same token, the presence of the “filter bank” as per feature (e) between the first and second beamforming modules does not guarantee any reduction in the number of channels, either upstream or downstream.
The board recognised that a binaural hearing system which takes into account a “first beamform signal” from the microphones of the ipsilateral hearing device as well as a “contralateral beamform signal” from the contralateral hearing device as in claim 1 as granted may indeed provide for a selective-listening experience.
However, claim 1 as granted does not require a specific sound source to be selected or targeted: it describes the components of the claimed “hearing device” and their connections but does not define a specific listening scheme or goal.
The subjective technical problem as set out in the description of the patent is not credibly solved by the features of claim 1 as granted.
The proprietor submitted several alternative formulations of possible objective technical problems at the OP before the board, but none of them convinced the board.
In a further iteration, the proprietor formulated the objective technical problem as “how to provide an alternative hearing device“.
However, in order for a modification of an electronic circuit as described in claim 1 as granted to be considered not obvious to a skilled person”, the modification must, as a prerequisite, produce a discernible technical effect.
Without such an effect, it is not possible to formulate an objective technical problem that is credibly solved in relation to such a modification.
Given that claim 1 merely describes the components of the claimed “hearing device” and their connections but does not specify the intended outcome or purpose of these components and connections, the board was not able to formulate, ex officio, any objective technical problem that is credibly solved over the whole scope claimed.
These components and connections are not even suitable for solving the subjective technical problem.
In the absence of any objective technical problem which is credibly solved by the subject-matter underlined in features (b), (e), (f), (g) and (h), no inventive step can be acknowledged.
The present decision shows that, in claim, it is not enough to merely list a series of components and their connections, for the latter to be inventive and /or to allege that the components are interrelated for this to be actually the case.
It is at least necessary to show that the components and their connection achieve the intended outcome or purpose and are hence suitable for solving the subjective technical problem defined by the applicant/proprietor.
If on top, there is no objective technical problem which is credibly solved by some or all of the components, lack of IS is unavoidable.
Comments
Leave a comment