United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

January 20, 2016

ERRATA ______________________

Appeal No. 2015-1047

REDLINE DETECTION, LLC, Appellant

v.

STAR ENVIROTECH, INC., Appellee

Decided: December 31, 2015 Precedential Opinion ______________________

Please make the following changes:

On page twenty-four, lines 1–9, replace the sentence

When asserting that a claimed invention would have been obvious, that party “must demon- strate by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan would have had reason to com- bine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable ex- pectation of success from doing so.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 2 REDLINE DETECTION, LLC v. STAR ENVIROTECH, INC.

1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

with the following sentence:

When asserting that a claimed invention would have been obvious, that party “must demon- strate . . . that a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a rea- sonable expectation of success from doing so.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Ariosa Diag- nostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentabil- ity by a preponderance of the evidence.”).