Whether an invention is non-obvious depends on whether someone of ordinary skill in a relevant field could easily make the invention based on prior art. However, except for the first invention of the pioneer, most of the patents are cumulative of prior art. How to avoid doubts about hindsight, as the appellant has mentioned "unexpected technical effect", "solving long-standing problems", "overcoming technical prejudice" and "obtaining commercial success" can indeed be used to determine whether a patent is non-obvious. ("Effectively saving production costs" claimed by the appellant should be part of the determination of the "unexpected technical effect" element.) These are secondary considerations under the “Examination Guidelines” of the Intellectual Property Office and scholarly opinions. However, through the investigation, defendant’s evidence 4, illustration 10A, 10B, and 10C, has substantially disclosed that the module 5 is fixed on the adapter 514 through the guiding device 515 and 516, and there is a space between the adapter 514 and the module 5. Through the structure of the guiding device 515 and the device 516, the module 5 can be fixed at a proper height, so that the connector 1 which connects the adapter and module can be inserted into the connecting port 3. These technologies have been able to solve the functions of positioning and supporting of the disputed patent. Therefore, "overcoming technical prejudice" does not exist with regard to the disputed patent. The defendant’s evidence 5, USB2.0 Specification Section 6.5.4.2 has disclosed the contents of the basic materials, so the disputed patent should be equivalent to the basic material of defendant’s evidence 4, and defendant’s evidence 4 has provided teaching to process the adapter 514 with stamping. The stamping technology is already a fairly mature technology, so whether it is the long trenches which is one of the defendant’s evidence 4, or a number of multiple directional pits in the disputed patent, the applied materials and technologies are equivalent. Therefore, the appellant’s arguments that disputed patent can solve the problem of high production costs and produce unexpected effects, or the disputed patent is a new technology, or they omitted or changed the technical features, are not acceptable. In addition, there are at least two methods in the market for the relevant technologies of the product: one is the self-reported prior art of the disputed patent, or as the appellant's evidence 20 mentioned: to support and increase the height with a thin slice; another one is to support and raise the height by setting a directional pits like the disputed patent, or a long trenches (the Device516 of defendant’s evidence 4). The appellant could not prove that the market share of its patented product has surpassed other products produced by other technologies. In addition, the method of supporting with thin slices or increasing the height is still the mainstream in the relevant market. Therefore, it is difficult to claim that the disputed patent has solved the long-standing problems in the relevant field. The appellant also failed to prove that the patented product gained commercial success due to the technical feature of the disputed patent, so it is difficult to conclude that the disputed patent can be considered non-obvious because they solved long-standing problems or gained commercial success.

Non-obviousness、Secondary Consideration