Wyers v. Master Lock: Federal Circuit Determines Obviousness as a Matter of Common Sense

Though obviousness is a mixed question of law and fact, expert factual testimony may not be necessary in circumstances where “common sense” is sufficient. In Wyers v. Master Lock, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s general verdict of non-obviousness, needing no expert testimony to determine that the patents in suit were obvious as a matter of law. The patents in suit involved hitch locks for tow trailers that included cylindrical sleeves for adjusting the diameter of the lock shank, and flanged seals to prevent contaminants from entering the lock mechanism. The prior art included locks with diameter-adjusting sleeves and padlocks with seals to exclude contaminants. The district court had ruled that the jury could have found that the prior art sleeve patents and padlock seal patents were not relevant prior art.

Relying on language from KSR v. Teleflex, the Federal Circuit held that the prior art patents, even if not relevant, were at least “reasonably pertinent” to the problem solved by the Wyler patents. The court then discussed the motivation to combine elements from the prior art, citing KSR for the proposition that in some cases the ultimate inference of the existence of such motivation “may boil down to a question of common sense.” Such circumstances obviated the need for expert testimony. The court held that it took no more than common sense to determine that, given the problems addressed by the patented tow hitch locks, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the prior art elements to yield a hitch lock with sleeves and a flanged seal.