Reply Brief in Support of KSR's Motion for Summary ... - Fried Frank

that Teleflex has found two experts who apparently are prepared to say, in conclusoryfashion, that "the Engelgau Patent involved a combination of elements that would nothave been obvious to one of ordinar skill in the art" (pltf. Opp. Br. at 12-13). "That theparies fervently dispute the ultimate conclusion of obviousness is not enough to raise aII Structural Rubber Prods.. Inc. v.Park Rubber Co.,749 F.2d 707, 721factul question.(Fed. Cir. 1984)."Whether a reference or a combination of references renders a claimed inventionobvious under 35 US.C. § 103 is a question oflaw subject to full and independent reviewin this cour." In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995). KSR's motion callsupon the Court to determine that the combination of (a) Asano and (b) an off-the-shelfpedalposition sensor, such as the CTS "503 Series" sensor, renders the subject matter ofasserted claim 4 of the '565 Patent unpatentable as a matter oflaw, just as the Patent .-Offce earlier ruled that the simlar combination of Reddig and Smith, described above,was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a) (see Exhbits 3-5 hereto). "(W)here the onlyissue is, as here, the application of the statutory standard of obvio.usness (35 U.S.C. §103) to an established set of facts, there is only a question oflaw to be resolved by thetraljudge." Newell; 864 F.2d at 762.12