“In general, taken out of a specific context, [certain improvements] may seem like a simple, common sense modification that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill and creativity.” Kranos Corp. v. Riddell, Inc., Case IPR2016-01649, Paper 25 at 35 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2018); see also South-Tek Sys.
This would set a dangerous precedent that essentially negates KSR’s requirement of providing “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” and would allow any petition that invokes these now- magic words to pass the test for instituting inter partes review.
Furthermore, Petitioner has failed to explain how the control buttons 72, 74 in Rothfuss would have been actuated to perform any functionality (e.g., cutting and stapling) if the handles 22, 24 were replaced with minimially invasive surgery (“MIS”) frame 52 and elongated shaft 54 of Green-209.
But this conclusory statement alone is entirely insufficient to satisfy KSR’s requirement of providing “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KRS Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If that were the case, then any petition submitted to the PTAB that invoked these magic words would be sufficient to show obviousness, which sets a dangerous precedent and effectively negates the requirement for “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KRS Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).