combine can be important because “inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19, 127 S.Ct. 1727. “[A]ny need known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727. Additionally, a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious “by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-20, 127 S.Ct. 1727; see also Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). “When there is a design need or market
holding that obviousness analysis may include recourse to logic judgment and common sense available to a person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion 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 holding that factual underpinnings of obviousness include whether reference provides motivation to combine its teachings with those of another reference holding that jurors do not need expert testimony on matters of common knowledge holding that summary judgment on grounds of obviousness did not require a supporting experts opinion