the Court cautioned that “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings [in the prior art] directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim.” Id.; see also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“[W]e have stated explicitly that evidence of a motivation to combine need not be found in the prior art themselves,” citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999 (Fed.Cir.1999)) (emphasis in original). Rather, courts must also “look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.” KSR Int’l, 127 S.Ct. at 1740-41; see also DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1366-67 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
recognizing common knowledge exception recognizing a common knowledge exception holding that common knowledge and common sense of one skilled in the art must be considered in determining obviousness holding that a reason to combine may come from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art the nature of the problem to be solved or common knowledge and common sense holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law