Though it purports to deal with a method of creating recycled glass products having the specified color, Faber is a disclosure of experiments that attempt to show that there is a correlation between the calculated redox number and the pO2 measurements of the corresponding melts.
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Khan, 441 F.3d 977, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
For example, Petitioner “did not explain why the alleged combination would have been a simple substitution achieving predictable results, or why selecting the prior art feature, as opposed to any other, would have been a choice from a finite number of solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.” See IPR2014-00258, Paper 18 p. 10 (Aug. 27, 2014).
“The Petition does not include expert testimony or other evidence to support its allegations concerning reasons why one skilled in the art 3448382 Case IPR2015-00943 Patent 6,230,521 would have combined features of references to arrive at the claimed invention.” IPR2014-00384, Paper 10 p. 12 (7/23/2014).
“[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed, Cir. 2006)).