Defendant did not, however, provide the specific reasons for combining each of Augustine, Gatten, Xiong, Stanley, Shang, Amalfi, Rabenbauer and Suzhou with Fan.
Indeed, none of Exhibits B-1 through B-10 of the Invalidity Contentions discusses in chart form how any of Augustine, Gatten, Xiong, Stanley, Shang, Amalfi, Rabenbauer and Suzhou in combination with Fan renders the claims obvious.
Finally, the vague generalizations provided by the Defendant at pages 9-10 of the Invalidity Contentions related to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references are also deficient.
“[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).
Defendant appears to rely on Fan to disclose “water and polyacrylamide.” However, the prosecution history of the ‘218 patent shows that the Examiner was aware that compositions having water and polyacrylamide were known.