a more comfortable applicator for a sensitive area like the axilla was not based on anything disclosed in either of the Gueret references. Dr. Singh’s testimony failed to establish any reason a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the two references to arrive at the claimed double-wall structure. Neither the Gueret ’986 reference nor the Gueret ’187 patent suggests, much less teaches, the claimed wall disclosed in the asserted claims of the ’861 patent. The nonobviousness of the inventions of the ’861 patent is further reinforced by the fact that the disclosures of both the Guer-et ’986 publication and the Gueret ’187 patent were considered by the PTO during examination of the ’861 patent. See Sciele Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., 684 F.3d 1253, 1260 (Fed.Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we hold that Amneal has
recognizing burden recognizing that there is a high burden of proof created by the necessary deference to the pto holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it holding that the statute at issue created a new cause of action because the burden of proof needed under the statute was less rigorous than the common law burden