is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.’ ” Id. (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 127 S.Ct. 1727.); see also Barr Labs., 575 F.3d at 1347-48. Thus, KSR marks a departure from, or, at least, a clarification of, prior precedent regarding obviousness. The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the “obvious to try” doctrine is illustrative of the overall effect of KSR, which was to broaden and strengthen the nonobviousness requirement of patentability. d. The Relative Importance of Secondary Considerations To complete the Graham analysis, the Court must evaluate secondary considerations, also known as “objective evidence of nonobviousness.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18, 86 S.Ct. 684; Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 667 (Fed.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). That is, after examining .the prior art,
holding that the district court erred in failing to properly charge the jury on defendants affirmative defenses holding that district court erred in failing to consider evidence of secondary considerations holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the employers proffered evidence of legitimate business reasons for the plaintiffs termination holding that the district court erred when it failed to consider the presumption of irreparable harm