US 10979836

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 10979836, including USPTO records and CAFC 2026 dockets.

Let me search for the specific CAFC docket (24-1917) and 2026 status of related litigation involving this patent.

Let me get the full issued claim set to identify all independent claims.

US Patent 10,979,836 — Analyst Summary

Important scoping note: I ran targeted searches for the specific number 10979836. All results below pertain to that patent (application 16/838,277) and its directly related proceedings. Where I rely on the authoritative patent text supplied, I prefer it over third‑party databases; where I only have database/HTML renderings, I say so. I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket activity specific to the '836 patent (see "Litigation" below).

1. Bibliographic data

Filing‑date note: The patent face and the Google Patents event log both state the filing date as April 2, 2020. One prosecution document (the ex parte reexamination Final Action, which is reproduced inside an IPR exhibit) recites "filed April 20, 2020." I interpret the controlling date literally as April 2, 2020 (2020‑04‑02) because the face of the patent and the application events agree; the "April 20" statement appears to be an error in that reexam document.

Continuity (from the specification): Continuation of 16/414,136 (filed May 16, 2019, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,701,499) → 15/700,511 (now 10,299,053) → 14/827,332 (now 9,781,530) → 14/054,015 (now 9,113,267) → divisional of 12/555,864 (filed Sept. 9, 2009, now 8,600,067) → provisional 61/098,250 (Sept. 19, 2008). The face of the patent also carries a terminal disclaimer notice (consistent with the 2029‑09‑09 expiration).

2. Abstract (as printed)

"A device or a method using the device includes a balloon configured to seal a user's orifice, where the balloon is configured to produce an acoustic seal between a first side and a second side of the balloon in an ear canal. At least a second side of the balloon is fitted into the ear canal. Audio processing circuitry produces an audio signal for driving a speaker in the device and to measure sound level using output from the microphone in the device while the speaker is being driven by the audio signal. The device or method further includes control circuitry to evaluate a seal quality of the device. Other embodiments are disclosed."

(Note: the printed abstract's lead sentence differs from the earlier published "Abstract" text in the family, which described a "sealing section"; the '836 issued abstract specifically recites a "balloon.")

3. Plain‑language overview of the independent claim(s)

Claim 1 — an earphone that performs an "eartip fit test" (independent claim):
The earphone contains a microphone, a speaker, and an eartip that seals the earphone between a first side and a second side. In response to receiving a "test fit signal," the speaker emits an audio test signal. A processor (with memory storing instructions and operatively connected to the microphone and speaker) executes operations that:

1. receive a microphone signal from the microphone;
2. compare that microphone signal to the test fit signal to determine the eartip seal;
3. send a first message if the seal is above a threshold (good seal); and
4. send a second message if the seal is below the threshold, indicating a new eartip or adjustment of the current eartip is needed.

Dependent claims (examples verified from the claim listing):

• Claim 2: the audio test signal has a frequency component below 1000 Hz.
• Claim 3: the frequency component is below 400 Hz.
• Claim 4: the first/second messages are visually displayed on a device communicatively coupled to the earphone.
• Claim 5: the eartip is a foam eartip.
• Claim 6: the microphone signal is buffered in memory.
• Claim 7: the eartip does not encapsulate a sealed eartip volume when inserted.

Uncertainty flag on independent-claim count: I positively verified claim 1 as an independent claim (earphone/eartip fit test). The sources I retrieved rendered only claims 1–7 in full and then truncated. I therefore cannot, with high confidence, state whether the issued '836 contains any additional independent claims (e.g., a method claim) or where they begin. The earlier published family member (US 2015/0365776 A1) had separate device and method independent claims, but those are not the '836 issued claims, and I will not attribute them to the '836 claim set. Treat the claim set as claims 1–18 where claim 1 is confirmed independent and 2+ appear dependent.

4. Subject matter (plain language)

The patent addresses testing whether an in‑ear device (e.g., an earbud/earphone with an inflatable sealing balloon or other eartip) is properly sealed in the ear canal. A test tone (notably below 200 Hz, ideally <50 Hz) is played by the ear‑canal receiver/speaker; the ear‑canal microphone (or, in an alternative "non‑difference" approach, the ear‑canal and ambient microphones) measures the response, and a cross‑correlation / correlation / coherence between the test signal and the measured signal determines seal quality. A high correlation indicates a good seal; a low correlation indicates a leak. The result can (a) trigger PASS/FAIL user messages, and (b) drive an Inflation Management System (IMS) to adjust sealing‑balloon pressure toward a desired attenuation level (comfort range ~0.1–0.3 bar gauge). The test signal can be masked by the audio content (musically harmonized with a detected strong tonal component) so testing is unobtrusive.

5. Post‑grant proceedings and litigation involving this patent

• PTAB IPR2022‑00410 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Staton Techiya, LLC), filed Jan. 14, 2022, challenging claims 1–18. Institution DENIED (decision Aug. 12, 2022; panel Hoskins, Engels, Cass) — listed as "Not Instituted – Merits." Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00410 and https://www.patexia.com (case summary IPR2022‑00410).
• Ex parte reexamination 90/015,146 — request filed Oct. 28, 2022 by a third‑party requester; order granting reexam mailed Dec. 19, 2022; applicant amendment June 21, 2023 added new claims 19–42; a Final Action dated July 28, 2023 rejected claims 1–42 (art unit 3992). The document states the '836 was "still enforceable" at that time. I could not locate a reexamination certificate confirming the final disposition (i.e., whether claims survived, were cancelled, or were amended/confirmed). Treat the ultimate '836 claim status as uncertain pending the certificate. Source: Ex Parte Reexamination Final Action exhibit (Docket Alarm, IPR2024‑01034 exhibit 1017).
• District court: Staton Techiya, LLC v. [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd., No. 2:21‑cv‑00413‑JRG‑RSP (E.D. Tex.), one of ten asserted patents. Final judgment June 21, 2024.
• Federal Circuit appeal 24‑1917 — filed June 6, 2024; dismissed December 20, 2024 on the parties' joint stipulation under FRAP 42(b). No substantive appellate ruling, and thus no precedent on the '836. Source: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/24-1917 and Federal Circuit order (nonprecedential).
• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket or opinion specifically addressing the '836 patent. The 2026 Staton Techiya appellate activity I encountered concerned other patents in the family (e.g., US 9,270,244; US 9,609,424; and the '839/'982 patents in the consolidated "ST Case1tech v. Squires" appeals), not the '836. Do not conflate those with '836.

6. Ownership / assignment history (as recorded on the patent record)

• Originally assigned to Staton Techiya LLC.
• Sept. 28, 2021: chain of assignments from inventors (Usher; Keady) → Personics Holdings, Inc./LLC → DM Staton Family Limited Partnership → Staton Techiya, LLC.
• June 21, 2024: Staton Techiya, LLC → ST Portfolio Holdings, LLC → ST Case1tech, LLC.
• Google Patents currently lists "Current Assignee" as ST Case1tech LLC / Personics Holdings Inc / Strategic Portfolio Holdings LLC (the listing may be incomplete/aggregated). Note the shell‑company names differ slightly across records (e.g., "St Famtech LLC," "St Case1tech LLC," "Strategic Portfolio Holdings LLC," "St Portfolio Holdings LLC"); I am reporting them literally as they appear and not normalizing them.

7. Confidence / uncertainty summary

• High confidence: Title, inventors, application number, filing date (Apr. 2, 2020), issue date (Apr. 13, 2021), priority (Sept. 19, 2008), abstract, claim 1 text, IPR2022‑00410 outcome, and the 24‑1917 dismissal.
• Moderate confidence: The full list of dependent claims (verified only for claims 2–7) and the absence of additional independent claims.
• Uncertain / not verified: The final outcome of ex parte reexamination 90/015,146 (whether claims 1–42 were cancelled, confirmed, or amended), and whether any 2026 CAFC docket touches the '836 specifically. I found none, but I cannot rule out a newly filed or unindexed matter.

Primary sources: Google Patents US10979836B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10979836/en); USPTO/Docket Alarm Ex Parte Reexamination 90/015,146 documents; Unified Patents PTAB page for IPR2022‑00410; Justia Patents claim listing for 10979836; Federal Circuit docket 24‑1917.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10979836.

Let me gather additional details on the outcomes and any other cases.

Litigation Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,979,836 ("Acoustic sealing analysis system")

Short answer: Yes, litigation is known. U.S. Patent No. 10,979,836 ("the '836 patent") was one of fourteen patents asserted by Staton Techiya, LLC against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas. That case went to a bench trial, and the court held the asserted patents unenforceable due to unclean hands, dismissing the infringement claims with prejudice. The appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1917) was voluntarily dismissed on December 20, 2024. A separate PTAB inter partes review of the '836 patent was denied institution. The patent was also the subject of an ex parte reexamination (an administrative, not litigation, proceeding).

1. District Court Litigation (the only merits litigation on the '836 patent)

Outcome / Current Status:

• Bench trial held March 26–27, 2024 on Samsung's unclean-hands defense and counterclaims.
• On May 9, 2024, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law finding the asserted patents (including the '836 patent) unenforceable against Samsung based on unclean hands. The court found that former Samsung in-house attorneys (Dr. Seungho Ahn and Mr. Sungil Cho), who founded Synergy IP, used Samsung's confidential and attorney-client privileged information to build and prosecute the case, and that Synergy's misconduct was imputable to Techiya as its agent.
• Final Judgment entered June 21, 2024 (Dkt. 950): the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents (including the '836 patent) are unenforceable against Samsung, Techiya's infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, and Samsung was designated the prevailing party entitled to recover costs.
• August 29, 2024: the court awarded Samsung $108,674 in taxable costs (with certain disputed cost items deferred). Samsung separately sought roughly $26 million in attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
• November 25, 2024: Law360 reported that Samsung and Techiya reached a settlement, following Samsung's win.

Sources: Docket Alarm, E.D. Tex. 2:21-cv-00413 documents (Final Judgment Dkt. 950; Findings Dkt. 923); CourtListener; Law360 case summary; ABA Journal ("Scheme by former Samsung lawyers was 'dishonest, unfair, deceitful and repugnant,' judge says").

2. Federal Circuit Appeal

Source: CAFC order, Staton Techiya, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 24-1917 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2024); Justia Dockets (24-1917).

3. PTAB Inter Partes Review (challenge to the '836 patent)

Sources: Patexia lawsuit summary for IPR2022-00410; the '836 reexamination Final Action (see below), which states the '836 patent "was subject to Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00410 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which was denied."

4. Related Administrative Proceeding (not "litigation," but directly on the '836 patent)

• Ex parte reexamination, Reexam Control No. 90/015,146.
• Request filed October 28, 2022 by a third-party requester; reexamination granted by order mailed December 19, 2022.
• Claims 1–18 (and proposed new claims 19–42) were rejected; a Final Rejection dated July 28, 2023 issued (pre-AIA, Art Unit 3992).
• A Patent Owner appeal of the '836 reexamination is reflected in the record of a later PTAB proceeding (IPR2024-01015 exhibits list, "Patent Owner appeal - '836 EPR"). I do not have a confirmed final disposition of that reexamination appeal and will not speculate on the current status of the '836 claims.

Source: Docket Alarm exhibit (Ex. 1017, Ex Parte Reexamination Final Action, Control No. 90/015,146).

5. Related (but not confirmed as asserting the '836 patent)

A later, separate Staton Techiya action against Samsung and Harman International Industries, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00319-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.), was stayed (order Oct. 30, 2024) and later settled (settlement referenced in IPR2024-01015). That action concerned, inter alia, U.S. Pat. No. 11,665,493. I could not confirm that the '836 patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-00319, so I do not list it as '836 litigation.

Summary Table

Caveat: The above reflects publicly available dockets and secondary sources as retrieved. Fee/sanctions motions and the reexamination appeal may have continued after the documents I could retrieve; I have not verified the very latest post-settlement status on PACER.

I'll start by pulling the canonical proceedings list and the litigation context from the patent record, then verify the PTAB docket via web search.

Found the key proceeding. Let me verify the details, plus the related reexamination and any Federal Circuit appeal.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,979,836: one (1) — 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, and 1 in which institution was denied — so the PTAB has never issued a claim-level validity ruling on this patent; the defensive posture is not "hardened," but rather "no PTAB win for the patent owner, and the patent is simultaneously under a final rejection of all claims 1–18 in ex parte reexamination 90/015,146 and was held unenforceable in E.D. Tex. on unclean hands."

Flag on the structured data. The "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. Web search contradicts that: IPR2022-00410 is on file (filed 2022-01-14, institution denied 2022-08-12). Google Patents' own family/litigation feed for this patent also carries the entry "PTAB case IPR2022-00410 filed (Not Instituted - Merits)." Treat the ODP-derived "none" as an indexing gap, not as an absence of activity.

Also note a data-source misread risk. Google Patents attributes the litigation entry to "Petitioner: 'Unified Patents PTAB Data' by Unified Patents…". That is a CC-licensed data-provider attribution, not a petitioner. The real petitioner in IPR2022-00410 is Samsung. There is no defensive aggregator in this chain — the opposite: the patent moved from Staton Techiya, LLC to ST Portfolio Holdings, LLC and ST Case1Tech, LLC on 2024-06-21, i.e., monetization vehicles, not a defensive fund.

IPR2022-00410 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Staton Techiya, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-01-14
• Status: Institution denied (Decision 2022-08-12). Verbatim disposition label in the Google Patents/Unified feed: "Not Instituted - Merits."
• Judge panel: George R. Hoskins (writing), Nathan A. Engels, Russell E. Cass
• Petition grounds (challenging all claims 1–18; grounds recited in Techiya's own E.D. Tex. pleading, Dkt. 895 ¶ 26):
  • Ground 1A — claims 1–3, 5–8, 14–16, and 18 anticipated (§ 102) by U.S. Patent No. 6,567,524 to Svean.
  • Ground 1B — claims 1–3, 5–8, 14–16, and 18 obvious (§ 103) over Svean in view of the knowledge of a POSITA.
  • Ground 2 — claims 2–13 and 15–18 obvious (§ 103) over Svean, POSITA knowledge, and U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0188105 to Baskerville.
  • Petitioner's expert: Dr. Chris Kyriakakis (Ex. 1002).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2022-08-12. Procedural context: the Board authorized supplemental Fintiv briefing on 2022-06-03; Patent Owner filed its brief on the Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials on 2022-07-01 and Samsung filed a Preliminary Reply on 2022-06-14 arguing the § 314(a) Fintiv factors should not produce a discretionary denial (Petitioners conceded factor 1 was neutral and fought factors 2–6). Caveat — I could not retrieve the text of the 2022-08-12 order itself, so I cannot state with confidence whether the denial rested on (a) the merits — no reasonable likelihood under § 314(a)/§ 314(b) — or (b) § 314(a) discretion over the parallel E.D. Tex. litigation. Two data points point in different directions: the Unified-derived status label says "Not Instituted - Merits," while the 2022 briefing was overwhelmingly about Fintiv discretion. The ex parte reexam final action merely says "the '836 Patent was subject to Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00410 …, which was denied. Please see the Order at 17-18 with respect to the reasons for said denial." Treat the exact basis as unconfirmed.
• Final Written Decision: None issued. No claim of the '836 patent has ever been canceled, confirmed, or adjudicated by the PTAB. Claims 1–18 are untested at the PTAB. Do not cite any FWD for this patent — one does not exist.
• Settlement / termination: Not a settlement. The proceeding terminated by denial of institution; the Board's denial is non-appealable (35 U.S.C. § 314(d); Thryv v. Click-to-Call).
• Appeal: No PTAB appeal exists. There is a related Federal Circuit matter, but it is a district court appeal, not a PTAB appeal: Staton Techiya, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 24-1917 (Fed. Cir., docketed 2024-06-06), appealing Judge Gilstrap's 2024-06-21 final judgment in E.D. Tex. Nos. 2:21-cv-00413 / 2:22-cv-00053. On 2024-12-20 the court ordered: "Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal of this appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed." No substantive review, no precedent. (CAFC order; docket)
• Defensive value: Samsung's § 102/§ 103 theories on claims 1–18 (Svean / Svean+Baskerville) were never adopted by the Board, and no § 315(e) estoppel attached because estoppel requires an instituted IPR that reaches an FWD. A defendant today is free to run Svean and Baskerville in district court. But the denial is also the reason the Patent Owner can say the patent has "never lost at the PTAB" — the real leverage is non-PTAB.

Related non-AIA proceeding you must know about: Ex parte reexamination 90/015,146 (US 10,979,836)

This is not an AIA trial, but it is the single most important fact about this patent for a defendant.

• Control No.: 90/015,146, Art Unit 3992, Examiner Charles R. Craver; pre-AIA provisions.
• Request filed: 2022-10-28 by a Third Party Requester (requester identity is not disclosed in the public excerpts I located).
• Order granting reexamination: mailed 2022-12-19.
• Patent Owner amendment adding claims: 2023-06-21, adding new claims 19–42.
• Final Rejection: 2023-07-28 — claims 1–18 (as issued) and new claims 19–42 all stand rejected, on §§ 305/112/103, including a § 112 ¶ 6 dispute over the "processor" limitations and § 103 rejections over Ryan (US 2004/0196992), Svean (US 6,567,524), Padhi (US 2005/0096899), Baskerville (US 2006/0188105), and Nielsen (US 6,879,692).
• Notice of Appeal: 2023-09-22; Appeal Brief: 2023-11-21 (appealing rejections of pending claims 1–42).
• Status as of filings in 2024–2025: "currently on appeal after a final rejection." Ex parte reexam appeals go to the PTAB first, then optionally to the CAFC; I could not confirm the PTAB appeal number or current disposition.
• Sources: Final Rejection (Ex. 1017); PO Appeal Brief (Ex. 1023).
• Key caveat: A reexam final rejection does not cancel claims. Claims 1–18 remain enforceable unless and until a reexamination certificate cancels them. The rejection is powerful evidence and a § 282 defense roadmap — not a judgment.

Strategic summary

Claim status on US 10,979,836. No claim is CANCELED by the PTAB — the only IPR ever filed was denied institution, so there is no FWD, no certificate, and no claim-level PTAB ruling. Claims 1–18 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. Do not let anyone tell you claims 1–5 (or any other claims) were canceled; they were not. The real narrowing pressure is administrative: the Examiner finally rejected all of claims 1–18 plus new claims 19–42 on 2023-07-28 in reexam 90/015,146, and that rejection is on appeal. If the PTAB affirms, a reexam certificate canceling or narrowing claims 1–18 is a realistic outcome — but it has not happened yet. Separately, in E.D. Tex. the '836 patent was among the ten patents adjudicated in Staton Techiya v. Samsung, where the court found unclean hands (Synergy's pre- and mid-litigation misconduct imputed to Techiya) and dismissed with prejudice; Techiya's appeal was voluntarily dismissed on 2024-12-20, leaving that judgment final between those parties. The portfolio was then assigned to ST Portfolio Holdings, LLC and ST Case1Tech, LLC (2024-06-21). Note also that the patent's anticipated expiration is 2029-09-09 — roughly three years of life left as of today, and the entire continuation family (including '493) shares that 2009 terminal date.

Estoppel landscape. There is no IPR estoppel against anyone on this patent. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered only by an IPR "that results in a final written decision under section 318(a)." IPR2022-00410 never instituted, so Samsung — and every other defendant — remains free to assert Svean (US 6,567,524), Baskerville (US 2006/0188105), Ryan (US 2004/0196992), Padhi (US 2005/0096899), and Nielsen (US 6,879,692) in district court, and to build § 103 combinations the Board and the Examiner never tested together. Prosecution-history estoppel from the reexam appeal is a separate and later-developing constraint (via the reexam file and any resulting certificate). Two live timing risks for a defendant: (i) a second IPR petition on the '836 is legally available to a new petitioner and would trigger estoppel only if instituted; and (ii) the family is already under coordinated attack — IPR2024-01015 (Samsung + Samsung Electronics America + Harman International Industries) targets U.S. Patent No. 11,665,493, the direct continuation of the '836 patent, which the petitioners expressly describe as sharing the '836's specification and seal-detection disclosure.

Pattern signals. Samsung filed serially across the Techiya portfolio (IPR2022-00234, -00242, -00243, -00253, -00324, -00388, -00410, and the 2024 series including -01004, -01015, -01034, -01101), and it won broadly: claims 1–9 and 11–18 of the '542 patent held unpatentable in IPR2022-00253 (claims 10, 19, 20 sustained); claims 14–17 and claims 1–4 of the '839 patent held unpatentable in IPR2022-00242 and IPR2022-00243; claims 17–20 of the '982 patent held unpatentable in IPR2022-00234. The Patent Owner appealed nearly every loss, and the Federal Circuit has affirmed rather than reversed — see ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires, Nos. 23-2305/23-2306 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2025) (nonprecedential, opinion) and Cases2Tech, LLC v. Squires, No. 23-2290 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2025) (affirming invalidation of '400 patent claims). No defensive aggregator participated — the "Unified Patents" text on the patent page is a data-license attribution. The through-line is a monetization portfolio with a poor post-grant record and an adverse unclean-hands judgment, not a hardened patent.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not rely on the ODP "no proceedings" default. The record shows IPR2022-00410 was filed 2022-01-14 and denied institution 2022-08-12. Pull the actual institution decision from PTAB E2E / the IPR2022-00410 docket and confirm whether the denial was merits-based ("Not Instituted - Merits" per the Unified feed) or § 314(a) discretionary over the parallel E.D. Tex. case — this materially changes how you brief your own § 315(e)/§ 325(d) positions. I could not resolve that from public sources, and I will not guess.
2. Build the invalidity case off the reexamination, not the IPR. The 2023-07-28 final rejection of claims 1–18 over Ryan + Svean + Padhi + Baskerville + Nielsen, plus the § 112 ¶ 6 "processor" construction fight, is a ready-made, Applicant-Admitted-art framework with no IPR estoppel attached. Obtain the full reexam file (90/015,146) and the status of the pending appeal before the PTAB.
3. Preserve the unenforceability holding. The E.D. Tex. 2024-06-21 judgment (unclean hands imputed from Synergy IP to Staton Techiya; dismissal with prejudice) went unappealed after the 24-1917 voluntary dismissal on 2024-12-20. If the same Patent Owner lineage asserts the '836 against you, evaluate issue preclusion / collateral estoppel on unenforceability, and note the June 2024 assignment to ST Portfolio Holdings / ST Case1Tech and whether your adversary is a privy of the prior plaintiff.
4. Watch IPR2024-01015 ('493 continuation) and the reexam appeal. If either produces cancellation or narrowing of claims mirroring '836 claims 1–18, that is your cheapest path to a § 282 invalidity defense — and it may arrive before the '836's 2029-09-09 expiration makes the fight moot.
5. Nothing is on a trial clock. Because institution was denied, there is no IPR statutory 1-year deadline, no oral hearing, and no FWD due date for this patent. Do not calendar PTAB milestones that do not exist; calendar the reexam appeal and the '493 IPR instead.

I'll research the assignment record and litigation history for US 10979836 before reconstructing the chain.

Let me dig for specific reel/frame numbers and the recording correspondents.

I was able to pull the patent's own legal-events record and correlate it with PTAB, district-court, and family-file-history documents. I was not able to complete a live Assignment Center query to read every reel/frame and correspondent field for this specific patent number before my tool budget ran out, so I mark those fields explicitly below rather than inventing them.

Inventors

Unusual pattern. This is not the classic "all inventors leave within 12 months" fire-sale tell. It is the inverse and more telling pattern: the inventor is also the patent-filer and the monetization principal. Keady is simultaneously (a) named inventor, (b) a USPTO-registered practitioner of record filing the family's papers, and (c) an officer of the assignee LLCs. Usher and Keady both assigned to Personics Holdings early; the value of the estate was later re-consolidated under LLCs that Keady still controls.

Original assignee

• Named on the issued US 10,979,836: Staton Techiya, LLC — a Delaware LLC (address of record 16193 Bridlewood Circle, Delray Beach, FL 33445).
• Original assignee of the family root (US 8,600,067, App. 12/555,864): Personics Holdings, Inc. (per Unified Patents' record for US‑8600067‑B2).
• Line of business: none in the conventional sense. A Staton Techiya/Techiya trial exhibit ("Personics Labs / Personics/Techiya") states the strategy verbatim as "Focus on core competency … License and/or sell IP (see Dolby)" and "Focus on monetization through license/sale."
• Products embodying the claims: No. In the Samsung litigation, the court record reflects that the only "products" were "secret prototypes … never offered for sale or sold," shown under NDA (see 2:21‑cv‑00413 briefing on § 287 marking).
• Current status: Staton Techiya as an entity is still nominally active, but on 2024‑06‑21 it transferred the estate out to ST Portfolio Holdings, LLC and then to ST Case1Tech, LLC, which is the assignee now appearing on the IPRs and the Federal Circuit appeals. The underlying operating/pre-product business (Personics) was wound down years earlier.

Assignment timeline

Caveat on reel/frame. The patent's own legal-events record (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑29) supplies dates and parties for six recorded events. I could confirm only two reel/frame citations, both from related family 37 CFR 3.73(c) statements, not from a per‑patent Assignment Center readout: Reel 043393/0001 and Reel 042992/0524. I therefore list reel/frame as [unconfirmed for this patent] where I cannot tie a specific reel to a specific event. Correspondent is likewise [unconfirmed per‑event]; the recurring names below are drawn from family prosecution/assignment papers.

1. 2009 (executed) / recorded ~2009 — Reel [unconfirmed]

   • Conveyance: Assignment (employee/inventor assignment)
   • Assignor: John Usher; John P. Keady
   • Assignee: Personics Holdings, Inc.
   • Correspondent: [unconfirmed]
   • Context: Initial vesting of the invention in the operating start-up (root application 12/555,864 → US 8,600,067).

2. ~2017–2018 (executed) / recorded ~2017–2018 — Reel 042992/0524 and 043393/0001 (both cited in related-family 3.73(c) chain-of-title statements; document titled "from DM Staton Family Limited Partnership, assignee of Staton Family Investments, Ltd")

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Staton Family Investments, Ltd. / Personics Holdings, Inc. & Personics Holdings, LLC
   • Assignee: DM Staton Family Limited Partnership (a Wyoming partnership, 6800 Broken Sound Parkway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33487)
   • Correspondent: [unconfirmed]
   • Context: Internal reorganization — the Personics estate is swept into a family limited partnership holding vehicle. Note: the reel numbers (≈43,3xx) imply a 2017–18 recording, which is inconsistent with the 2021 legal-event date Google attaches to the DM Staton→Staton Techiya link below; I flag this rather than reconcile it.

3. 2021‑09‑28 (recorded) — Reel [unconfirmed]

   • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor assignment)
   • Assignor: John P. Keady; separately John Usher
   • Assignee: Personics Holdings, Inc. / Personics Holdings, LLC
   • Correspondent: [unconfirmed]; family filings signed by John P. Keady, Reg. 56,389
   • Context: Late-recorded inventor assignments completing the chain just before assertion.

4. 2021‑09‑28 (recorded) — Reel [unconfirmed]

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Personics Holdings, Inc. and Personics Holdings, LLC
   • Assignee: DM Staton Family Limited Partnership
   • Correspondent: [unconfirmed]
   • Context: Internal reorg step; the same-day batch of recordings is a portfolio-level instrument.

5. 2021‑09‑28 (recorded) — Reel [unconfirmed] (the "Intellectual Property Assignment Agreement" produced as Dkt. 469‑3 in 2:21‑cv‑00413)

   • Conveyance: Assignment ("irrevocably conveys … all of Staton's right, title, and interest in and to all Staton's intellectual property that was previously owned by Personics Holdings, LLC and/or Personics Holdings, Inc.")
   • Assignor: DM Staton Family Limited Partnership
   • Assignee: Staton Techiya, LLC (Delaware LLC, 16193 Bridlewood Circle, Delray Beach, FL 33445)
   • Correspondent: [unconfirmed]
   • Context: Transfer-to-asserter. Bulk conveyance of the entire Personics estate to the newly-formed assertion vehicle.

6. 2024‑06‑21 (recorded) — Reel [unconfirmed]

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Staton Techiya, LLC
   • Assignee: ST Portfolio Holdings, LLC
   • Correspondent: Peter A. Chiabotti, Reg. No. 54,603, Attorney of Record for the assignee family (Akerman LLP, 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 W. Tower, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Customer No. 150139) — recurring throughout this family; flag as repeat correspondent.
   • Context: Internal reorganization after the May 2024 adverse judgment — moving the estate out of the judgment debtor.

7. 2024‑06‑21 (recorded) — Reel [unconfirmed]

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: ST Portfolio Holdings, LLC
   • Assignee: ST Case1Tech, LLC (also appears as "ST CasesTech, LLC," 9501 Jagged Creek Ct, Delray Beach, FL 33446) — current assignee
   • Correspondent: Peter A. Chiabotti, Reg. No. 54,603 (signed as "Attorney of Record" for ST CasesTech, LLC, 08/08/2024); the assignee signature block was executed by Dr. John Patrick Keady, CTO & Assistant General Counsel IP
   • Context: Second hop of a two-step, same-day cascade into the entity now litigating.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10979836
    2008 : Provisional filed by Usher and Keady
    2009 : Root application filed
    2013 : Root patent issues to Personics Holdings
    2018 : Estate swept into DM Staton Family LP
    2021 : Inventors assign to Personics Holdings
         : DM Staton assigns to Staton Techiya LLC
         : Suit filed against Samsung
    2024 : Staton Techiya assigns to ST Portfolio Holdings
         : ST Portfolio assigns to ST Case1Tech

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. Staton Techiya, LLC → ST Portfolio Holdings, LLC → ST Case1Tech, LLC, both hops recorded 2024‑06‑21, same day. The successor has no products, a residential-style address (9501 Jagged Creek Ct, Delray Beach, FL 33446), and appears in Unified Patents data as "Parent Company" over a cluster of look-alike shells (ST Case1Tech, ST CaseS tech, ST Portfolio Holdings, ST R&D Tech, DM Staton Family LP). No reel/frame confirmed individually, but the two-hop transfer event is on the patent's own legal-events record.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. The patent is asserted in Staton Techiya, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2:21‑cv‑00413 (E.D. Tex., filed 2021‑11‑04/05). Unified Patents' litigation page for that case flags co-plaintiff Synergy IP Corp as "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)." Synergy IP was founded by Seung‑Ho Ahn, Samsung's former IP head; the court dismissed the case with prejudice for litigation misconduct / unclean hands (May 9, 2024), finding Techiya retained control over Synergy's licensing and litigation — i.e., a self-directed assertion campaign, not a passive license.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT (family-level). Peter A. Chiabotti, Reg. No. 54,603 (Akerman LLP / Customer No. 150139) recurs throughout the Personics→Staton Techiya family filings and signed as the assignee family's Attorney of Record in 2024; John P. Keady, Reg. No. 56,389 appears as both inventor and filing practitioner and as the assignee officer who executed the 2024 papers. Per-event correspondent fields are unconfirmed. The signal here is role collapse (inventor = filer = assignee officer) plus one recurring outside firm, not a single stray appearance.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT. Two same-day, multi-link recordings: the 2021‑09‑28 batch (inventors→Personics; Personics→DM Staton; DM Staton→Staton Techiya) and the 2024‑06‑21 batch (Staton Techiya→ST Portfolio→ST Case1Tech) — chained LLCs, consecutive hops inside 24 months, sharing principals and counsel.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT. The DM Staton → Staton Techiya IP assignment is recorded 2021‑09‑28; the first infringement complaint naming the '836 patent is filed 2021‑11‑04/05 — roughly 5–6 weeks later, comfortably inside the 6‑month window. The reconveyance completed standing immediately before suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 or court-supervised patent sale identified. The Personics wind-down and the DM Staton consolidation were private transfers.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR. The transfer to an asserter is real, but the "operating company funds an NPE against competitors" template is a poor fit: Personics was already dormant when the estate was conveyed. The closer analogue is a founder/inventor-controlled monetization vehicle (Keady) plus a hired assertion licensee (Synergy IP). Marked unclear rather than present.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. To the contrary, Unified Patents is adverse (it filed the failed IPR2022‑00410 against this patent), and the current owner is litigating through IPRs and the Federal Circuit (appeal No. 24‑1917).

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two or more strong signals are independently documented: a pre-litigation transfer (DM Staton → Staton Techiya recorded 2021‑09‑28, suit filed 2021‑11‑04/05, ~5–6 weeks later) and a same-day, two-hop shell cascade (2024‑06‑21: Staton Techiya → ST Portfolio Holdings → ST Case1Tech), layered on top of cascading same-day bulk recordings and a co-plaintiff flagged by Unified Patents as an NPE. The current owner (ST Case1Tech, LLC) markets no product — the family's own materials describe the model as "license and/or sell IP" — and the assertion campaign collapsed in May 2024 when the district court dismissed the case with prejudice for unclean hands, after which the estate was transferred to fresh shells that continue the appeal.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10,979,836; the legacy mirror is https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). If you need per-event reel/frame and correspondent fields confirmed, that direct Assignment Center pull is the outstanding step — I flagged each unconfirmed field above rather than guess.

Reel/frame citations I could verify (family-level, not per-event): Reel 043393/0001 and Reel 042992/0524, per 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statements in Personics/Staton Techiya family file histories.

I'll research US patent 10979836 and its prior art citations. Let me search authoritative sources.

I have the patent but need its complete front-page "References Cited" list. Let me search for the specific citations.

Let me retrieve the complete "References Cited" list and the reexamination record for the '836 patent.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 10,979,836 (application 16/838,277)

1. Confirmation of the target patent (interpreted literally)

I located the exact patent you specified — no similar numbers substituted:

Source: Google Patents US10979836; Exhibit‑1001 copy filed in IPR2022‑00410.

⚠️ Important sourcing limitation, stated up front: The Google Patents full-text fetch of this patent truncates the face-of-patent (56) References Cited list. I could confirm only the first US entries and the foreign entry listed below, plus the references USPTO/PTAB actually relied on in the reexamination and IPR challenges to this family. I could not retrieve a complete, verified enumeration of every (56) reference from the sources available to me. I therefore separate the two categories below and flag every item whose full bibliographic data I could not verify rather than filling gaps by inference.

2. References cited on the face of US 10,979,836 (partially retrieved)

These are the entries that appear in the patent's (56) "References Cited" block as retrieved:

§ 102 mapping for the (56) references: I cannot responsibly assign specific claims to Brodie, Urella, or CN 107071123, because (a) their full text/titles were not retrievable in this session, and (b) these references were listed as being of record, not necessarily as the art relied on for rejection. Assigning a § 102 anticipation mapping to a reference whose disclosure I have not read would be fabrication. I am flagging this rather than guessing.

3. Prior art actually relied upon against the 10979836 family (verified)

This is the substantive prior art that the USPTO and patent challengers applied to this patent family (the '836 patent and its continuation, US 11,665,493). These are the references the record shows were used to test the claims:

3a. Epley — U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0299362 A1

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0299362 A1 (Epley), "Stimulus‑Evoked Vestibular Evaluation (SEVE) system."
• Publication date: 2007‑12‑27.
• Description: A vestibular‑diagnostic system using left/right ear probes that seal the ear. Each ear probe contains a "speaker 74 and microphone 76." To "ensure proper sealing," the feedback mechanism applies "a known sound and volume and measuring the acoustic response within the subject's ear as picked up by the microphone," then performs a "straightforward comparison of input and output sound parameters [to] determine whether the ear probe is properly sealed," and produces a display warning when appropriate (¶[0070]).
• § 102 status / relevance: Cited under § 102(a)(1). Epley discloses the core "play a known sound → measure response with a co-located microphone → compare to determine seal" concept. It is relied on as the primary reference (as the base reference of a § 103 combination in the related petition). Source: petition record at ptacts.uspto.gov.

3b. Padhi — U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0096899 A1

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0096899 A1 (Padhi), "System and method for comparing audio signals."
• Publication date: 2005‑05‑05.
• Description: Receives a microphone signal (102) and a reference signal (104), pre‑processes them (low‑pass, band‑pass, decimation), cross‑correlates the two signals, extracts parameters (delay, amount of correlation, pitch variation), and generates a "score" reflecting how well the signals match. See [0017], [0027]–[0033], [0069]–[0079], Fig. 1, Fig. 6.
• § 102 status / relevance: Cited under § 102(a)(1). Discloses the cross‑correlation-of-two-audio-signals and threshold/score comparison element. Source: ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1556185.

3c. Voix — "Method and system for assessing in‑situ an acoustic seal of an in‑ear device"

• Full citation: U.S. patent/publication to Voix (record shows "Voix | 1009 | U.S. …", number truncated in the retrieved source — I could not verify the exact patent number and therefore do not assert one).
• Description (verified from the record): A dual‑microphone probe with microphones "mounted in a back‑to‑back relationship" — a first microphone measures an external sound‑pressure level near the earplug and a second measures an internal sound‑pressure level inside the ear canal. It indicates the presence of an acoustic seal when the attenuation between the first and second sound levels is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold ([0036], [0039], [0100], [0140]).
• § 102 status / relevance: Used for the "compare a computed value to a threshold to determine seal quality between the first side and the second side" element. The ear canal‑side/ambient‑side, threshold‑based seal determination maps directly onto the seal‑detection claims (equivalently, the family claims the IPR identified as 1, 3‑5, 7‑8, 10‑11 and 18‑20 of the sibling '493 patent). Source: ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1556185.

3d. Other references of record (made of record but "not relied upon")

The Examiner's notice of allowance in the family identified additional art as "pertinent" but not relied upon, including: Padhi (US Pub. 2005/0096899), Siltmann (US Pub. 2007/0019817), Kyriakakis (US Pub. 2004/0196992), Oliveira (U.S. Pat. 5,002,151), and Rast (US Pub. 2001/0046304). Also named in the petition record as not previously considered: Hayashi, Bourk, and Beard. I have not verified the bibliographic specifics of these items and therefore do not assign § 102 readings to them.

4. Which claims are potentially anticipated / implicated

Because the full claim set and the reexamination rejection detail were not fully retrievable, I state this at the correct level of generality:

• The '836 patent was subject to ex parte reexamination (Control No. 90/015,146) that ended in a final rejection (07/28/2023), and remains on appeal. This means the examiner applied prior art to specific claims; however, the specific claim numbers of the '836 rejection were not verifiable from the sources I retrieved, so I will not invent them.
• IPR2022‑00410 (challenging the '836 patent) was filed and denied institution by the PTAB ("Not Instituted – Merits"), per the Google Patents litigation/PTAB panel.
• In the parallel challenge to the continuation US 11,665,493, Ground 1 (Epley in view of Padhi and Voix) was asserted against claims 1, 3–5, 7–8, 10–11, and 18–20. Because the '836 is the parent of the '493 and shares the same specification and the same "seal analysis" claim family, those references are the ones that bear on the corresponding '836 claim scope.

Claim‑level § 102 correspondence (based on verified reference disclosures):

On this record, no single one of these references anticipates the full claim to the extent the claim requires the combination of (i) an in‑ear speaker/microphone seal test, (ii) cross‑correlation of two signals, and (iii) a threshold decision based on ear‑canal‑vs‑ambient sensing — which is why the challenges were framed as combinations (Epley + Padhi + Voix) rather than pure single‑reference § 102 anticipation. Pure § 102 anticipation is best supported, if at all, on the broader independent claims, while the narrower dependent claims (balloon/inflatable sealing, pressure adjustment of the sealing section per the '836 abstract) are more naturally addressed under § 103.

5. What I could not verify (stated explicitly rather than guessed)

1. The complete (56) References Cited list of US 10,979,836 — the source truncated it after US 4,020,297 (Brodie), US 5,138,722 (Urella), and CN 107071123.
2. The exact patent number/date for "Voix" (record shows a truncated "U.S. …").
3. The specific claim numbers rejected in ex parte reexamination 90/015,146 of the '836 patent.
4. The precise titles of Brodie (4,020,297) and Urella (5,138,722) as cited.

One record conflict worth noting: Google Patents annotates IPR2022‑00410 under "Unified Patents PTAB Data," while the Docket Alarm filing path attributes the IPR2022‑00410 petition to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. I did not resolve which attribution is controlling, so I present both rather than choosing.

If you want the definitive (56) list and the reexamination rejection chart, the authoritative sources are the USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper for 16/838,277 and Reexam Control No. 90/015,146, which I was unable to open directly in this session.

I'll start by trying to locate the prior-art references associated with US10979836, since the "Prior Art" section wasn't included in the patent text provided.

Let me gather the actual claims of US10979836 and more detail on the IPR/reexam art.

Let me pin down the exact claim language of US10979836 and the reexamination/PTAB outcomes.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,979,836 B2 ("Acoustic Sealing Analysis System")

0. Evidence base and caveats (read first)

The Google Patents page for US10979836 as fetched did not contain an expanded "References Cited"/"Prior Art" listing — only the prior-art metadata (keywords: signal, eartip, earphone, seal, microphone; prior-art date 2008‑09‑19) and the family‑litigation links. I therefore reconstructed the operative prior art from (i) the USPTO Form 56 list reproduced on the patent's own front page, and (ii) the adversarial record in the IPR and reexamination. Where I could not verify something in this session I say so explicitly.

Two accuracy flags:

• Claim text. I could not re-pull the printed claim set of the '836 in this session. The '836 abstract (balloon seal; audio-processing circuitry driving a speaker and measuring sound level via the microphone while the speaker is driven; control circuitry to evaluate seal quality) is verbatim identical to the sibling US 10,299,053 B2, whose claim 1 I quote below as the closest available proxy. The reexamination record additionally shows claims reciting first/second "seal good / seal bad" messages, a foam or eartip sealing element, an acoustically masked test signal, a sub‑50 Hz test signal, and "unobtrusive" testing. Treat the element chart in §10 as reconstructed, not verified.
• Legal status nuance. The Board denied institution in IPR2022‑00410, but the examiner rejected all claims in reexamination 90/015,146. These are not inconsistent — they rest on different art and different burdens.

1. The patent and its legal framework

• App. 16/838,277, filed 2020‑04‑02, granted 2021‑04‑13; continuation chain back to App. 12/555,864 (US 8,600,067) and provisional 61/098,250 (2008‑09‑19). 18 claims, 15 sheets.
• The reexamination notice states the patent is examined under pre‑AIA first‑to‑invent provisions, so § 103(a) applies and the critical date for prior-art qualification is ~September 2008. Any reference published/patented before then qualifies; anything later (e.g., 2011 art) qualifies only if a claim loses the 2008 priority benefit (see §7).

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

An engineer/audiologist with ~2–3 years' experience in earphone and hearing-aid electroacoustics, familiar with insert-type ear terminals, ear-canal microphones/receivers, transfer-function and seal/leakage measurement, and adaptive signal processing. This is essentially the level the parties assumed in both the IPR and the reexam.

3. The prior art on the record

(a) Cited on the patent's own face (Form 56, reproduced on the '836 front page): US 4,020,297 (Brodie); 5,138,722 (Urella); 5,142,587 (Kobayashi); 5,319,163 (Scott); 5,264,781/5,764,781 (Ding); 5,712,453 (Bungardt); 6,321,070 (Clark); 7,688,983 (Voix); 7,801,318 (Barthel); 8,401,200 (Tiscareno); 8,550,206 (Keady); 8,774,433 and 9,293,128 (Goldstein); 8,774,435 (Ambrose); 9,084,060 (Liu); 2013/017/179 (Ambrose); 2014/0247948 and 2014/0247952 (Goldstein); 2018/0176681 (Asada); foreign: CN 107071123. The wider family (e.g., US 11,665,493) additionally lists US 6,567,524 (Svean), EP 1519625 A2 and WO 2006037156 A1, showing the applicant was aware of Svean during prosecution of the family.

(b) Asserted in IPR2022‑00410 (Samsung) — claims 1–18:

• Ground 1A: claims 1–3, 5–8, 14–16, 18 anticipated by US 6,567,524 (Svean).
• Ground 1B: same claims obvious over Svean + POSITA knowledge.
• Ground 2: claims 2–13, 15–18 obvious over Svean + POSITA + US 2006/0188105 A1 (Baskerville).
• Result: institution denied (Aug 12, 2022), "Not Instituted – Merits."

(c) Applied by the examiner in ex parte reexam 90/015,146 (final rejection 2023‑07‑28; requester = third party). Per the examiner's rejection and Techiya's appeal brief:

• Claims 1–3, 5–8, 14–16, 18, 20–22, 28–30: obvious over US 2004/0196992 A1 (Ryan) + Svean + US 2005/0096899 A1 (Padhi).
• Claims 9–13, 24–26 and (display-related) claim 4: + Baskerville.
• Claims 19, 23, 27: + US 6,879,692 B2 (Nielsen).
• Tiscareno (2011) was cited as intervening art — confirming that the requester/examiner treated at least some claims as not entitled to the 2008 priority date.

All of Svean (2003), Ryan (2004), Padhi (2005), Nielsen (2005) and Baskerville (2006‑08‑24) predate September 2008 and are therefore available as § 103(a) art.

4. What each reference teaches

• Svean (US 6,567,524) — "earphone test fitment system and method." A foam eartip; a processor that generates a test signal, feeds a speaker, and processes the test signal against a microphone signal (M2) to determine fitment, outputting a "go/no go" indication of seal sufficiency. Svean expressly teaches a second microphone (M1) arranged on the other side of the device (FIG. 1), and states the test signal may be acoustically masked, below 50 Hz, and sent unobtrusively; it also motivates the test by warning that leakage must be found and remedied before noise exposure to avoid hearing damage.
• Padhi (US 2005/0096899) — comparing a microphone signal to a reference signal by cross-correlation, expressly described as an improvement in accuracy over level comparison.
• Baskerville (US 2006/0188105) — in-ear hearing-protector testing: play a predetermined sound through a speaker connected to a processor, read the microphone input, and determine the attenuation afforded by the device (i.e., its fitment); report the result as a message on a connected mobile computer/display ("device logic" produces the test signal, compares, and drives the display).
• Ryan (US 2004/0196992) — earphone providing feedback to the user as to seal and fit (¶¶[0054]–[0055]); filtering/level-detection elements 22, 32.
• Nielsen (US 6,879,692) — hearing-aid self-test, with the express rationale that a defect should be signalled to the operator who may be fitting the device; discloses noise, frequency-sweep and two-tone test signals.
• Tiscareno (US 2011/0116643) — graded/qualified messages about seal quality (only available if priority is lost).

5. The combinations and the motivation to combine

Combination A — Svean, alone or + POSITA knowledge (IPR Grounds 1A/1B)

Svean discloses every functional element: test-signal generation, speaker emission, microphone capture in the occluded volume, signal comparison, and a seal-quality (go/no-go) output; the second microphone on the opposite side of the device supplies the two-volume measurement. Under KSR the only remaining question is the recitation of a "balloon" sealing element (Svean's eartip is foam). Svean itself makes the substitution obvious-adjacent because the claim's function — an acoustic barrier between a first (ambient) and second (ear-canal) side that is measured, not the particular elastomer — is what is claimed; and the patent's own specification treats a "flexible rubber or silicon sealing unit or a foam plug" as interchangeable with a "pressurized expandable element" (balloon). A POSITA seeking a controllable, conformable seal had strong reason to substitute a known inflatable balloon for a foam eartip: predictable result, known equivalent structure, and the added benefit of adjustable attenuation. Motivation: Svean's own safety rationale (detect leakage before noise exposure).

Combination B — Svean + Baskerville (IPR Ground 2)

Adds Baskerville's processed attenuation determination and reporting on a connected display to Svean's fitment test. Motivation: both are in-ear fit-verification systems; Baskerville supplies the concrete way to convey the seal result to the user, and combining known reporting techniques yields the predictable benefit of an actionable, verifiable fit indication.

Combination C — Ryan + Svean + Padhi (reexam core ground — claims 1–3, 5–8, 14–16, 18 …)

• Ryan supplies the earpiece/system context and the recognized need to give the user feedback on seal and fit.
• Svean supplies the test-signal → speaker → microphone → fit decision architecture, the two-microphone opposite-side arrangement, and the explicit safety motivation (detect leakage before harmful noise exposure).
• Padhi supplies the cross-correlation comparison and the stated reason to prefer it: greater accuracy than simple level differencing — precisely the improvement the '836 touts (its own specification argues cross-correlation beats level differencing for robustness to user-generated noise such as coughing or teeth chatter).
• Motivation: all three are analogous art in earphone occlusion/seal testing; Padhi supplies a known, more accurate technique solving the same comparison problem; the combination is a predictable, mechanical substitution of an improved comparator. Examiner also invoked the routine-engineering rationale of integrating filtering/level-detection into the processor (In re Larson), a recognized KSR rationale.

Combination D — + Baskerville (claim 4 and the "displayed message" claims)

Adding Baskerville supplies visual display of the first/second (good/bad) messages on a device coupled to the earphone. Motivation: Ryan already contemplates user feedback; Svean contemplates transmitting a message to an external monitoring unit; Baskerville teaches the visual-indicator implementation — a simple substitution of a known output modality.

Combination E — + Nielsen (claims 19, 23, 27)

Nielsen supplies the self-test rationale and test-signal varieties (noise, sweep, two tones). Motivation: Nielsen expressly reasons that a self-test is desirable "so that a defect … can be signalled to the operator," and that the choice of test signal is a routine engineering decision — the classic "obvious to try / predictable result" rationale.

Combination F — + Tiscareno (intervening art)

Only if the priority claim fails. Tiscareno's graded seal-quality messages would then supply the detailed-message limitations, motivated by the stated improvement in user guidance.

6. Representative element mapping (claim 1, as reconstructed from the sibling '053 claim)

7. Priority exposure (important, and often decisive)

Tiscareno (2011) being cited as intervening art shows the requester successfully argued that at least some claims lack written-description support in the 2008 provisional and therefore take a later effective date. If that holds, the entire 2009–2012 ear-seal-testing field — Tiscareno, Goldstein (8,774,433 / 9,293,128 / 2014/0247948 / 2014/0247952), Ambrose (8,774,435), Barthel (7,801,318) — becomes available, and the obviousness case strengthens considerably. Conversely, if priority is sustained, only the pre‑September‑2008 references (Svean, Ryan, Padhi, Nielsen, Baskerville) may be used.

8. Weaknesses in the obviousness case / why the PTAB said no

1. The "balloon" limitation. Svean's eartip is foam and Baskerville's is a passive in-ear protector; neither is an inflatable balloon. Samsung's Ground 1A/1B apparently could not bridge this to the Board's satisfaction, which is a plausible reason institution was denied. The obviousness case therefore leans on a substitution rationale (balloon ≡ known conformable sealing element) that is arguable but not automatic, and on the patent's own statement that foam/silicone and an expandable element are alternatives.
2. Caution on the patentee's own inflation patents. US 10,009,677 ("Methods and mechanisms for inflation," priority 2007‑07‑09) and US 11,291,456 ("Expandable sealing devices and methods," priority 2007‑07‑12) are Staton Techiya-family disclosures of ear-canal balloons and would be excellent § 103 art for the balloon element — but if they are relied on only as pre-AIA § 102(e)/(f)/(g) art and are commonly owned with the '836, pre-AIA § 103(c) may disqualify them. Their use requires confirming publication dates and ownership/obligation-of-assignment status. I could not verify either in this session.
3. Teaching-away / bodily-incorporation arguments. Svean's foam eartip is a passive, non-adjustable seal; a POSITA might argue the references give no reason to adopt an actively pressurized seal merely to run a test. The counter is the '836's own characterization of the passive and pressurized options as interchangeable.
4. The Board's denial is not dispositive. Institution denial reflects a failure to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the record presented, not a holding of validity; the examiner reached the opposite conclusion on a different (Ryan-anchored) combination.

9. Bottom line

The functional core of the '836 claims — generating a test signal, reproducing it with the earphone speaker, capturing it with a microphone, and evaluating seal quality — is squarely taught by Svean (fit test with go/no-go output, opposite-side second microphone, masked/sub‑50 Hz/unobtrusive test), made more accurate by Padhi (cross-correlation over level comparison), rendered reportable by Baskerville (attenuation computation and display on a coupled device), and contextually motivated by Ryan (user seal/fit feedback) and Nielsen (self-test signalling). The examiner's reexamination rejection (all of claims 1–42 over Ryan + Svean + Padhi, with Baskerville, Nielsen and Tiscareno as secondary references) reflects the strongest § 103 case on the record, and it is the case I would rely on. The pivotal disputed limitation is the "balloon" sealing element, and the outcome likely turns on (i) whether a balloon-over-foam substitution is deemed predictable, and (ii) whether the claims keep their 2008 priority — which controls whether the 2009–2012 art is available at all.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10979836/en; Form 56 image of the '836 at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00410/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd/docs/01-14-2022-Petitioner/Exhibit-1001-US_Patent_No_10,979,836.pdf; IPR grounds and denial at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--21-cv-00413/Staton_Techiya_LLC_et_al_v._Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._et_al/docs/895.pdf and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00410/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._v._Staton_Techiya_LLC/docs/05-18-2022-Patent_Owner/Preliminary_Response-7-Patent_Owners_Preliminary_Response.pdf; reexam final action 90/015,146 at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556185](/patent/1556185)/download-documents?artifactId=bj39GHBkOyiugve37AcnSlrXyIPfwAvuh1_iQ_TYnksJpKe932dvE2Q and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01034/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd/docs/07-01-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1017-Ex_1017_Final_Rejection_from_Reexam_90_015,146.pdf; Techiya appeal brief at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01034/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd/docs/07-01-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1023-Ex_1023_Techiya_Appeal_Brief_from_Reexam_90_015,146.pdf; sibling claim 1 at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US10299053B2](/patent/US10299053B2); Baskerville at http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fd/c3/a6/01f0996efa0cd1/US20060188105A1.pdf.