Legal Opinion · Dissent

K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided May 27, 2014No. 2013-1549Published

1DissentDyk, Circuit Judge

This should be an easy case, reversing the quite odd decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) that it could not consider whether multipronged electrical connections were well known in the prior art. But the majority does not reverse. It affirms. In my view, this case raises important questions regarding the role of the PTO in making obviousness determinations.

The majority holds that patent examiners, in addressing questions of obviousness, may not rely on their expert knowledge and common sense about what is well known in the art except “in narrow circumstances”…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  4. Dickinson v. ZurkoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  5. American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API