a claimed combination, also a question of fact. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Prior art teaches, away when “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Id. (citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). In fact, the prior art could contain one reference suggesting a combination and others critiquing or otherwise discouraging the same. Even a .single reference can include both types of statements, and we have held that it is error to fail to consider the entirety of the art. See, e.g., W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (<HOLDING>). “The degree of teaching away will of course
holding the district court erred by considering the references in less than their entireties ie in disregarding disclosures in the references that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand 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 at summary judgment hearing trial court erred by considering theory not raised in the pleadings 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 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