Opinion ID: 210543
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: In this appeal, we are presented with one issue, namely, whether the asserted claims of the '777 patent would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 at the time the invention was made. An invention is not patentable, inter alia, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because a patent is presumed to be valid, 35 U.S.C. § 282, the evidentiary burden to show facts supporting a conclusion of invalidity, which rests on the accused infringer, is one of clear and convincing evidence. AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine, 344 F.3d 1234, 1238-39 (Fed.Cir. 2003). Whether an invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a question of law, reviewed de novo, based upon underlying factual questions which are reviewed for clear error following a bench trial. Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1289 (Fed.Cir.2006).