of old elements. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 51-52, 86 S.Ct. 708, 714-715, 15 L.Ed.2d 572, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966) ("Despite the fact that each of the elements of the Adams battery was well known in the prior art, to combine them as did Adams required that a person reasonably skilled in the prior art must ignore” long-accepted factors.) There is neither a statutory distinction between "combination patents" and some other, never defined type of patent, nor a reason to treat the conditions for patentability differently with respect to "combination patents”. It but obfuscates the law to posit a non-statutory, judge-created classification labeled "combination patents”. Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 714 F.2d 1573, 219 USPQ 8, 12 (Fed.Cir.1983). Medtronic, 721 F.2d at 1566 (<HOLDING>). Cedarapids’s citation of Medtronic indicates
holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding exclusion was harmless error holding that the district courts error in calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the error had no impact on the defendants sentence holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that the district courts error was however harmless in light of other considerations