Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 JULY 2014

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

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that it was correct to require record evidence to support a proposed obviousness rejection.

United StatesIntellectual Property

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.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from