invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so,” PAR Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1193. In making an obviousness determination, the court is required to “step backward in time and into the shoes worn by [the skilled artisan] when the invention was unknown and just before it was made ... [and] then determine whether the patent challenger has convincingly established ... that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at that time to that person.” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (alteration in original) (citations omitted); see also Graham, 383 U.S. at 3, 86 S.Ct. 684. The court does not consider hindsight. Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, before the court invalidates a
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 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 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 holding that the computer readable code claimed in claim 6 the product claim was a part or component of that invention holding that the proponent must offer proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention 