(i.e. patentees) knew at the time the invention was made. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed.Cir.1985). “Inventors, as a class, ... possess something ... which sets them apart from the workers of ordinary skill....” Id. Furthermore, evidence of a contemporaneous invention, in and of itself, is never sufficient to establish that an invention was obvious at the time that it was made. See, e.g., Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1380 n. 4 (Fed.Cir.1986) (the simultaneous development of a similar invention may or may not be indicative of obviousness depending on the surrounding circumstances and the other evidence in the case), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947, 107 S.Ct. 1606, 94 L.Ed.2d 792 (1987); In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1098 (<HOLDING>); Environmental Designs v. Union Oil Co. of
holding of obviousness affirmed on the basis of the teachings of the prior art references in combination not on the basis of the contemporaneous invention recognizing that courts must be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention holding that the moving party must show prior art references which alone or combined with other references would have rendered the invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex holding that obviousness is determined entirely with reference to a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art  and the actual inventors skill is irrelevant to the obviousness inquiry