Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art in Section 103 Determinations,” 8 APLA Jrl 321 (1980). Connell, 722 F.2d at 1548-49. The court noted that nearly every invention requires building upon prior art or old elements, and that an invention in which all of the elements are old can nonetheless be an invention precisely because experts are skeptical, citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572, 148 USPQ 479 (1966). Id. The court concluded that the proper question was whether the invention as a whole, in light of all the teachings of prior art, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, citing 35 U.S.C. § 103. Id.; see also Rosemount, Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 727 F.2d 1540, 1546 (Fed.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). This court will follow suit, and consider
holding that when an agency changes its policy with retroactive effect a reviewing court must determine the reasonableness of the new interpretation and whether application of the new policy to a party who relied on the old is so unfair as to be arbitrary and capricious holding a court may apply a new rule in the criminal case before it but return to the old rule as to all other cases arising on facts predating the pronouncement holding that the claims of a patent were inherently anticipated where the inventor merely discovered new properties of an old alloy holding that the patent in suit was not obvious because a combination may be patentable whether it be composed of elements all new partly new or all old citing connell and prior art did not suggest the solution to a recognized problem hit upon in the patent recognizing that the circumstances in which such authority may be exercised are limited and that it must be clear that the evidence sufficiently sustains all the elements of the lesser offense