see also ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1984). In KSR the Supreme Court cautioned that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words, teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741. Courts must avoid a “rigid approach” in determining whether an invention would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739-40. An “expansive and flexible approach” must instead be applied, and the courts may utilize “common sense” in addressing a question of obviousness under § 103. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739-40, 1741-42; see also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1367-71 (Fed.Cir.2006) cert. denied — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2937, 168 L.Ed.2d 262 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d
recognizing a common knowledge exception holding that a reason to combine may come from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art the nature of the problem to be solved or common knowledge and common sense holding that affidavit of merit is not required in common knowledge cases holding that common knowledge and common sense of one skilled in the art must be considered in determining obviousness recognizing common knowledge exception