Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01507/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01507-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anova Hearing Labs, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: ANOVA HEARING LABS, INC.,

Appellant

______________________

2019-1507

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 96/000,138.

______________________

Decided: April 7, 2020 

______________________

ANTIGONE GABRIELLA PEYTON, Cloudigy Law PLLC, 

Tysons Corner, VA, argued for appellant. 

 PETER JOHN SAWERT, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by 

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, WILLIAM LAMARCA. 

 ______________________

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Anova Hearing Labs, Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board’s decision on reexamination holding that 

claims 1–6, 9, 10, 12–39, 41–47, 49–58, and 63–70 of U.S. 

Patent No. 8,477,978 would have been obvious. Because

Case: 19-1507 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2020
2 IN RE: ANOVA HEARING LABS, INC.

the Board’s decision did not articulate a basis or rationale 

sufficient for this court to determine whether substantial 

evidence supports its motivation to combine finding, we vacate and remand.

BACKGROUND

The ’978 patent is directed to a completely-in-canal 

(CIC) hearing aid in which a flexible mounting insert secured in the bony region of the ear canal holds the device 

case in place. ’978 patent at 5:4–9. The specification describes the advantages of allowing natural sounds to flow 

into the ear canal and mix with the augmented sound generated by the hearing device. Id. at 2:57–60, 3:3–6, 5:46–

52, Fig. 6. That natural sound flows past the case inserted 

into the ear canal and through an open area provided on an 

outer portion of a flexible insert mounted within the ear 

canal. Id. at 3:3–6. The top portion of the flexible insert is 

attached to the receiver section of the case. Id. at 2:65–3:2.

The ’978 patent issued on July 2, 2013. In 2015, Anova 

requested supplemental examination for the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office (USPTO) to consider U.S. Patent 

No. 7,421,086 (Bauman ’086) and U.S. Patent No. 

7,076,076 (Bauman ’076) as prior art. The USPTO ordered 

reexamination, finding Bauman ’086 and Bauman ’076 

raised a substantial new question of patentability. In a 

Non-Final Office Action, the examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 

5,654,530 (Sauer) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 

2002/0085728 (Shennib) in view of Bauman ’086 and Bauman ’076. Anova amended claim 1 to overcome this rejection. Claim 1 is representative:

1. A completely in the canal hearing device, said 

device comprising: 

a case having a power source, a microphone, a receiver element, and an acoustic passageway, 

wherein said case, when mounted in the ear canal, 

Case: 19-1507 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2020
IN RE: ANOVA HEARING LABS, INC. 3

provides at least one open passageway between the 

ear canal and the case;

at least one flexible insert comprising a hub portion 

and an outer portion adjacent to the hub portion, 

the hub portion attached to a tip formed at a receiver end of the case, the outer portion providing 

an open area when mounted against a wearer’s ear 

canal to create a sound path extending through the 

at least one open passageway and said open area, 

wherein the open area defined by the outer portion 

ranges from about 5 to 70% when the flexible insert 

is in its mounted position within the ear canal.

’978 patent at 8:40–52 (emphases added).

In the Final Office Action, the examiner rejected

amended claim 1 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,129,174 

(Brown) and the admitted prior art1 in view of Bauman ’086, Bauman ’076, and Sauer.

Anova appealed to the Board, arguing that the examiner erred in asserting that a person of ordinary skill in the 

art would modify Brown to have the open areas of Bauman ’086, Bauman ’076, and Fretz. Anova argued instead 

that combining the behind-the-ear (BTE) insert of Fretz, 

Bauman ’076, or Bauman ’086 with the in-the-canal (ITC) 

inserts of Brown or Sauer would destroy the seal required 

by the ITC references. The Board affirmed the examiner’s 

rejection, holding representative claim 1 would have been 

obvious based on a combination of Brown, Sauer, Fretz, 

Bauman ’076, and Bauman ’086. Anova appeals. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

1 The examiner noted that, in addition to the admitted prior art, the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 7,027,608

(Fretz) were incorporated by reference in the specification 

and considered as admitted prior art.

Case: 19-1507 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 04/07/2020
4 IN RE: ANOVA HEARING LABS, INC.

DISCUSSION

“We review the PTAB’s factual determinations for substantial evidence and its legal determinations de novo.” In 

re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). 

Obviousness is a question of law which is based on underlying factual findings. Id. at 1381. 

When considering whether a claim would have been obvious in light of a combination of multiple references, the 

Board “consider[s] whether a [person of ordinary skill in 

the art] would have been motivated to combine the prior 

art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there 

would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333 

(Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Motivation to combine is a factual inquiry, which 

we review for substantial evidence. Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 

1381. “The factual inquiry whether to combine references 

must be thorough and searching and the need for specificity pervades our authority on the findings on motivation to 

combine.” Id. at 1381–82 (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

We have explained that the Board “must examine the 

relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for 

its action including a rational connection between the facts 

found and the choice made.” Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 1382 

(quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assoc. v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted)). The requirement that the 

Board provide sufficient articulation “appl[ies] with equal 

force to the motivation to combine analysis.” Id. at 1383. 

Here, the Board’s articulation has left us unable to reasonably discern the Board’s motivation to combine findings. 

Id. at 1383; see In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 

2002)).

Case: 19-1507 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 04/07/2020
IN RE: ANOVA HEARING LABS, INC. 5

Anova argues that the Board did not establish a motivation for combining aspects of BTE devices—Bauer ’086, 

Bauer ’076, and Fretz—with other aspects of sealed ITE 

devices—Brown and Sauer—to achieve the claimed invention. It argues that the ITE devices seal the ear canal to 

prevent acoustic feedback, whereas BTE devices intentionally leave a gap in the ear canal. As such, it argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the ITE 

devices to include the claimed acoustic pathway because 

doing so would result in significant acoustic feedback issues. 

The Board addressed Anova’s motivation to combine 

arguments in its final written decision. The Board noted:

[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill 

in the art, being of ordinary creativity and not being an automaton, to have combined a known hearing aid with an “open passageway” and a flexible 

insert creating a sound path through the open passageway and “open area” formed by the flexible insert (i.e., Brown) with the known feature of flexible 

inserts of varying dimensions, sizes, or specifications (any of Brown, Fretz, Bauman ’076, or Bauman ’086) in order to address the known problem 

of the “occlusion effect” in hearing aids (any of 

Brown, Fretz, Bauman ’076, or Bauman ’086) to 

achieve the known, predictable, and expected result of a hearing aid with an insert of a desired dimension, size, or specification (any of Brown, Fretz, 

Bauman ’076, or Bauman ’086).

J.A. 11–12. 

The Board’s analysis does not indicate why a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would modify an ITE device like 

Brown or Sauer to include an “open passageway” that allows ambient noise to enter the ear canal. The Board’s general statements that a person of ordinary skill in the art 

would combine any of these multiple different references to 

Case: 19-1507 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 04/07/2020
6 IN RE: ANOVA HEARING LABS, INC.

address the problem of occlusion effect in hearing aids does 

not explain what features of the references, or even which 

references, would be combined to achieve the claimed invention. The Board also does not explain why a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify 

Brown, which already includes vents, to address occlusion 

effect. See J.A 396. The Board does not explain why a person of skill in the art would conclude that Brown needed to 

be modified. It is unclear why the Board found a skilled 

artisan would be motivated to combine the five separate 

references. It is also unclear precisely what the Board was 

using the different references for in this five-reference rejection. 

The Board failed to sufficiently articulate a reason why 

a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to 

combine the ITE and BTE devices. We vacate and remand 

the case to give the Board the opportunity to explain its 

reasoning. See Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 1385.

CONCLUSION

The Board’s reexamination decision is vacated and remanded.

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 19-1507 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 04/07/2020