Perfect Web contends that the district court improperly viewed the invention through a hindsight-tinted lens, and discounted expert testimony that the patent was not a common-sense advance.
[1] The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida's decision granting summary judgment to invalidate Perfect Web's '400 patent due to the obvious nature of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C.
[5] The Federal Circuit noted, as observed by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex, that common sense can be a source of reasons to combine or modify prior art references to achieve the patented invention.
Furthermore, the court held that analysis of obviousness may "include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill" that do not explicitly require expert opinion.
The Federal Circuit rejected Perfect Web's arguments that the patent satisfied a long-felt need because they failed to provide any evidence of improved efficiency beyond "bare assertion".
The court, referencing Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., suggested that any proof of long-felt need would be insufficient to "overcome [the] strong prima facie showing of obviousness."