United States: "Common Sense" Cannot Substitute For Record Evidence To Support Obviousness Rejections In Inter Partes Reexamination

In K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC, No. 13-1549 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2014), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board and held that it was correct to require record evidence to support a proposed obviousness rejection in an inter partes reexamination.

Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC ("Hear-Wear") is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,016,512 ("the '512 patent"), directed to a hearing aid.  The claims-at-issue, dependent claims 3 and 9, recite a "plurality of prongs that provide a detachable mechanical and electrical connection" from the behind-the-ear audio processing module to the in-the-canal module of the hearing aid.  Slip op. at 3.

During prosecution of the '512 patent, the examiner initially rejected these claims as known in the art and therefore obvious.  However, Hear-Wear amended the independent claims and the examiner ultimately allowed all the claims.  K/S HIMPP ("HIMPP") requested an inter partes reexamination of the '512 patent, which the PTO granted.  HIMPP proposed an obviousness rejection that the Central Reexamination Unit ("CRU") examiner refused to adopt because HIMPP "failed to provide evidence in support of [its obviousness] contention."  Id.  Hear-Wear appealed to the Board, which then concluded that, "although HIMPP argued that the content of claims 3 and 9 was 'well known,' HIMPP failed to direct the Board 'to any portion of the record for underlying factual support for the assertion.'"  Id. at 4 (citation omitted).  HIMPP appealed to the Federal Circuit and contended that the Board erred in requiring record evidence to support the assertion that the features were known prior art elements.

We recognize that the Board has subject matter expertise, but the Board cannot accept general conclusions about what is 'basic knowledge' or 'common sense' as a replacement for documentary evidence for core factual findings in a determination of patentability.  To hold otherwise would be to embark down a slippery slope which would permit the examining process to deviate from the well-established and time-honored requirement that rejections be supported by evidence."  Slip op. at 8 (citing In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1385-86 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board and held that record evidence was required to support a finding that structural elements were known prior art elements.  The majority emphasized how this holding complied with the Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).  In KSR, the Supreme Court cautioned against overemphasizing the importance of published articles and issued patents for combining references in obviousness determinations.  The majority distinguished KSR, stating that "the present case does not present a question whether the Board declined to consider the common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when combining or modifying references.  Instead, it is about whether the Board declined to accept a conclusory assertion from a third party about general knowledge in the art without evidence on the record . . . ."  Slip op. at 6-7.  The essence of the majority's distinction was that KSR was a case related to "the combinability of references where the claim limitations were in evidence," and the instant case "involve[d] the lack of evidence of a specific claim limitation."  Id. at 7.

The Federal Circuit explained that neither the examiner nor the Board took official notice of what HIMPP asserted was known in the art.  The majority stated that although PTO examination procedure allows examiners to rely on common knowledge to support a rejection, it is only appropriate in narrow circumstances.  The majority reasoned that since the examiner and the Board did not take official notice of the facts at issue, HIMPP could not point to any evidence on the record.  The majority concluded that the Board correctly refused to accept "general conclusions about what is 'basic knowledge' or 'common sense' as a replacement for documentary evidence for core factual findings" in patentability determinations.  Id. at 8 (quoting In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1385-86 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).  "To hold otherwise would be to embark down a slippery slope which would permit the examining process to deviate from the well-established and time-honored requirement that rejections be supported by evidence."  Id.  Accordingly, because HIMPP was unable to point the Board to any record evidence to support its contention that the claims were known in the art, the majority affirmed the Board's decision to not adopt HIMPP's obviousness rejection.

Finally, the majority turned to HIMPP's requests for the Court to take judicial notice.  First, HIMPP requested that the Court take judicial notice that a multiprong plug mechanical and electrical connection was known in the art.  The majority declined to take judicial notice "for the same reasons . . . that it was reasonable for the Board and Examiner to decline to take official notice."  Id. at 9.  Second, HIMPP requested that the Court take judicial notice of a prior art reference not cited in the inter partes reexamination.  The majority again refused to take judicial notice.  The majority noted that inter partes reexamination is usually limited to prior art references cited in the reexamination request and "prior art that raises a substantial new question of patentability as determined by the Director."  Id. (citing Belkin Int'l, Inc. v. Kappos, 696 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).  Because HIMPP did not cite the reference in its request for inter partes reexamination and the Director did not cite the reference as creating a substantial new question of patentability, the majority "decline[d] to exercise [its] discretion to take judicial notice."  Id.

Accordingly, because HIMPP failed to cite to any record evidence in support of its contention that claims 3 and 9 of the '512 patent contained only known prior art limitations, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision declining to accept HIMPP's obviousness contention.

Judge Dyk dissented, stating that "[t]his should be an easy case, reversing the quite odd decision of the [PTO]."  Dyk Dissent at 1.  Judge Dyk expressed concern that limiting the Board to record evidence would "undermine[] the purpose of post-grant agency review."  Id. at 2.  Moreover, in Judge Dyk's view, "the majority's holding is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in KSR."  Id.  Judge Dyk concluded that the electrical and mechanical plug in question was well known and within the common sense of a person of ordinary skill, stating that "[e]very purchaser of electrical devices in the United States for the past 50 years or more is familiar with multipronged electrical connections."  Id. at 4.

Judge Dyk explained that KSR expanded the sources of information that could be used in the obviousness inquiry to include "background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill."  Id. at 6 (quoting Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).  Disagreeing with the majority's distinction between KSR and the instant case, Judge Dyk reasoned that KSR allowed the Board to use "logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference."  Id. (quoting Perfect Web, 587 F.3d at 1329).  Accordingly, Judge Dyk would have reversed the Board's decision and "remand[ed] for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in KSR."  Id. at 8.

Judges:  Lourie (author), Dyk (dissenting), Wallach
[Appealed from Board]

This article previously appeared in Last Month at the Federal Circuit, June, 2014.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
22 Jan 2019, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan partners Shana Cyr and Mark Feldstein will provide essential updates on FDA practice and patent law relating to biologics and biosimilars.

27 Jan 2019, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel Winter Meeting. Finnegan partner Erika Arner will join the panel discussion “PTAB Review & Litigation.”

27 Jan 2019, Other, Florida, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel Winter Meeting. Finnegan partner Erika Arner will join the panel discussion “PTAB Review & Litigation.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions