Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ “MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ’253 PATENT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT,” DENYING DEFENDANTS’ “MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF THE INVALIDITY OF CLAIMS 1, 11, 20, 30, AND 39 OF THE ’253 PATENT IN VIEW OF PRIOR ART,” AND GRANTING DEFENDANT DELPHI CORPORATION’S “MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY ... FOR LACK OF ENABLEMENT” CLELAND, District Judge. This is a patent infringement case where Plaintiff has sued Defendants for infringement of United States Patent No. 5,231,253 (“the ’253 patent”) based on Defendants’ manufacture and/or use of side impact sensors for detecting acceleration forces in automobile air bag safety devices or systems. The ’253 patent is titled “Side Impact Sensors” and claims certain sensors designed to be used for side impact sensing and initiating a vehicle’s occupant protection apparatus (e.g. air bags). The court entered a claim construction order regarding the ’253 patent on March 31, 2004. This case is currently before the court on three dispositive motions challenging the validity the ’253 patent. First, on October 15, 2004 Defendants American Honda Motor Company, Daim-lerChrysler Corporation, DaimlerChrysler Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Honda Motor Company Ltd., Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Company, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Saab Cars USA, Inc., Siemens AG, Siemens Automotive Corporation, TK Electronics, Inc. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, and Visteon filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’253 patent for failure to comply with the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1. This motion was fully briefed and, on January 5, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion. Second, Defendants American Honda Motor Company, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, DaimlerChrysler Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Honda Motor Company Ltd., Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Company, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Saab Cars Sales USA, Inc., TRW, Inc., and Visteon Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment on October 15, 2004 challenging the validity of Claims 1, 11, 20, 30, and 39 of the ’253 patent based on anticipation and obviousness under Sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Defendants filed an amended brief in support of their October 15, 2004 motion on October 25, 2004. Plaintiff filed a response on November 24, 2004 and the court received Defendants’ reply brief on December 23, 2004. The court held a hearing on this motion January 12, 2005. Third, on February 3, 2005, Defendant Delphi Corporation (“Delphi”) filed its “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,231,253 for Lack of Enablement.” Delphi moves for the court to find, as a matter of law, that the claims of the ’253 patent that cover an electronic sensor are invalid for failure to fulfill the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. Delphi’s motion also has been fully briefed and the court heard oral argument from the parties on April 27, 2005. For the reasons explained below, the court will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity for failure to comply with the written description requirement, deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity of certain claims in view of the prior art, and grant Delphi’s motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement. I. STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). “Where the moving party has carried its burden of showing that the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits in the record construed favorably to the non-moving party, do not raise a genuine issue of material fact for trial, entry of summary judgment is appropriate.” Gutierrez v. Lynch, 826 F.2d 1534, 1536 (6th Cir.1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)); see also AU Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 778 (Fed.Cir.2002). Summary judgment is not appropriate when “the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Searfoss v. Pioneer Consol. Corp., 374 F.3d 1142, 1148 (Fed. Cir.2004). The existence of some factual dispute, however, does not defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment; the disputed factual issue must be material. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (“The judge's inquiry, therefore, unavoidably asks whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict-'whether there is [evidence] upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.’ ”). A fact is • “material” for purposes of summary judgment when proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the claim or a defense advanced by either party. Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171,174 (6th Cir.1984). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in a manner most favorable to the nonmoving party. Stryker Corp. v. Davol Inc., 234 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed.Cir. 2000); Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir.2003) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). The court is not to weigh the evidence to determine the truth of the matter, but must determine if there is a genuine issue for trial. Sagan v. United States, 342 F.3d 493, 497 (6th Cir. 2003). The burden falls • on the moving party to conclusively show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wilkins v. Jakeway, 183 F.3d 528, 532 (6th Cir.1999); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1569 (Fed.Cir. 1997). II. DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT MOTION A. Background In their motion based on an alleged failure to comply with the written description requirement, Defendants make essentially three arguments. First, Defendants argue that the claims of the ’253 patent fail to satisfy the written description requirement because the claim limitation reciting “means 'for mounting” at locations on “a side of the vehicle between the centers of the front and rear wheels” is nowhere described in the specification. (Defs.’ Mot. Br. at 1.) Second, Defendants argue that the asserted claims do not meet the written description requirement because they encompass a sensor that may be mounted at locations other than the side door of a vehicle, contrary to the “express and unequivocal requirement in the specification that ‘[a] crash sensor for sensing side impacts must be placed on the side door structure’ and that ‘[t]his location is essential ....’” (Id. at 2.) Third, Defendants argue that the May 1, 1992 amendment which added the claim limitations at issue “constitutes ‘new matter’ added to the claims during prosecution of the patent, lacking the' required description in the specification.” (Id. at 1.) On the other hand, Plaintiff argues that the claim language “between the centers of the front and rear wheels” is clearly illustrated in Figure 4- of the ’253 patent specification and is fully described in the written text of the ’253 patent specification. Plaintiff maintains that no new matter was added during prosecution and that the specification is not limited to a sensor mounted in a side door of a vehicle. It also argues that Defendants have failed to meet their burden to show that no reasonable jury could find the written description was satisfied, and that there is at least a triable issue of fact on invalidity. The ’253 patent describes “Side Impact Sensors” and the current dispute focuses on the location for mounting these sensors. The claim language at issue relates to each of the forty-five patent claims in the ’253 patent with the exception of Claim 45. The language includes “a means for mounting” a sensor “onto at least one of a side door of the vehicle and a side of the vehicle between the centers of the front and rear wheels, in such a position and direction as to sense an impact onto the side of said vehicle.” See,. e.g., ’253 Patent Claims 1, 15, and 29. In its order construing claims, the court ruled that these claims permit, but do not require, the sensors described to be mounted onto the side door of the vehicle. (03/31/04 Order at 28-30.) The ’253 patent is dated July 27, 1993 and resulted from the prosecution of several patent applications. Initially, Patent Application 314,603 (the “ ’603 application”) was filed on February 23, 1989. Another patent application, No. 480,273 (the “ ’273 application”), was filed on February 15,1990. The ’273 application is a.continuation-in-part application of the ’603 application and includes the disclosures found in the ’253 patent. The ’253 patent eventually issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 896,496 (the “ ’496 application”), which is a continuation of the ’273 application. The parties agree that the ’273 application and the ’496 application have the same specification. During prosecution of the ’253 patent, the inventors sought an amendment on October 9, 1991. In the October 9, 1991 amendment, the patent applicants amended certain independent claims to “recite ‘means for mounting said sensor into the side door of a vehicle ...’” They also stated “it is the concept of placing an acceleration determining sensor in the vehicle door for which the applicants seek patent protection.” (Defs.’ Mot. Br., Ex. 2; see also Defs.’ Markman Br., Ex. 3 at 158.) In the October 9, 1991 amendment, the ’253 Patent applicants went on to distinguish their use of acceleration sensors to sense side collisions from prior art. They specifically distinguished their application from “references, such as Norton” that use acceleration sensors “located within the forward position of the vehicle to-sense frontal impacts.” {See Defs.’ Mot. Br., Ex. 2 at 9; Defs.’ Markman Br., Ex. 3 at 159.) The claim language currently 'at issue was added by amendment dated May 1, 1992. {See Defs.’ Mot. Br. Ex. 3.) Before this amendment, the claim language read “means for mounting said sensor onto the side door the vehicle in a position to sense an impact into the side of said vehicle.” (Id.) The claim language was amended to “means for mounting said housing onto at least one of a side door of the vehicle and a side of the vehicle between the centers of the front and rear wheels, in such a position and direction as to sense an impact into the side of said vehicle.” (Defs.’ Mot. Br. Ex. 3, May 1, 1992 Amendment at 2.) The May 1992 amendment remarks described the change in language as follows: “the sensor is mounted on the motor vehicle in such a way as to sense side impacts; that is, it is mounted either on a side door of the vehicle or on a ‘side of a vehicle between the centers of the front and rear wheels,’ (or in both places) and it is located and oriented in such a way as to sense an impact into the side of the vehicle. Claims 1, 16, and 31 formerly recited that the acceleration sensor was mounted in a ‘side door’ of a vehicle. Such mounting is preferable, although unnecessarily limiting since (for example) the sensor can be mounted within the pillar between the front and rear doors of a four-door vehicle” (Id., May 1, 1992 Amendment at 7.) Prior to this May 1, 1992 amendment, the applicants sought approval for a device that had a means for mounting onto a side door of a vehicle. The ’253 patent issued with the changes from the 1992 amendment incorporated into the claims. B. The Written Description Requirement The “written description” requirement is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112. It provides, in relevant part: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and. of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to'which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 35 U.S.C.A. § 112, ¶ 1. This written description requirement helps to balance the competing interests at stake in the realm of patent law. As the Supreme Court has described, The patent laws “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by rewarding innovation with a temporary monopoly. U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. The monopoly is a property right; and like any property right, its boundaries should be clear. This clarity is essential to promote progress, because it enables efficient investment in innovation. A patent holder should know what he owns, and the public should know what he does not. For this reason, the patent laws require inventors to describe their work in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms,” 35 U.S.C. § 112, as part of the delicate balance the law attempts to maintain between inventors, who rely on the promise of the law to bring the invention forth, and the public, which should be encouraged to pursue innovations, creations, and new ideas beyond the inventor’s exclusive rights. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 150, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989). Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 730-731, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 152 L.Ed.2d 944 (2002). Whether the subject matter of a patent claim fails to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is a question of fact. All Dental Prodx, LLC, 309 F.3d at 778 (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed.Cir.1991)); Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 1289, 1294 (Fed.Cir. 2004)- (citing Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prods., 228 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed.Cir. 2000)). “A party alleging that a patent is invalid for failure to comply with the written description requirement has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the requirement was not met, in light of the presumption of validity.” Intiriool, 369 F.3d at 1294 (citing Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352,1364 (Fed.Cir.2003)). The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has described the court’s written description inquiry as follows: The written description inquiry is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1991) (quoting In re Smith, 59 C.C.P.A. 1025, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (“Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement of § 112 must be determined on a case-by-case basis.”)). In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in hace verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue. See Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1904 (Fed.Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, the disclosure must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention, Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1116-17, although we have also clarified that the possession test alone is not always sufficient to meet the written description requirement, Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gem-Probe Inc., 285 F.3d 1013, 1020-21 (Fed.Cir.2002). As such, “the written description requirement is satisfied by the patentee’s disclosure of ‘such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.’ ” Enzo Biochem, 285 F.3d at 1021 (quoting Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed.Cir.1997)). Put another way, one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must reasonably discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Os-teonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 558, 31 USPQ2d 1855,1857 (Fed.Cir.1994). Crown Operations Intern., Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1376 (Fed.Cir.2002). The Federal Circuit has also noted that “[i]t is a truism that a claim need not be limited to a preferred embodiment. However, in a given case, the scope of the right to exclude may be limited by a narrow disclosure.” Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir.1998); see also Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1997) (noting that case law does “not compel the conclusion that a description of a species always constitutes a description of a genus of which it is part”). To satisfy the written description requirement, the patent specification “must clearly allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Gentry Gallery Inc., 134 F.3d at 1479 (quoting In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008,1012 (Fed.Cir.1989)). C. The ’253 Patent Specification & The Written Description Requirement Defendants maintain that the claims of the ’253 patent are invalid, as a matter of law, for reciting claim limitations for mounting the sensors described “between the centers of the front and rear wheels” without support in the specification. (Defs.’ Mot. Br. at 8.) According to Defendants, the specification does not contain any description of what is meant by “between the centers of the front and rear wheels” or any description that • sensors could be mounted (or how to mount them) at a range of locations “between the centers of the front and rear wheels.” (Id.) In addition, Defendants rely on the unambiguous text set forth at column four, lines 8-13 of the ’253 patent specification where it states: “A crash sensor for sensing side impacts must be placed on the side door structure to be effective. This location is essential since it is sensing the velocity change of the portion of the vehicle which will eventually strike the occupant and therefore serves as a good predictor of V-cr.” (’253 patent, col. 4, lines 8-13; Defs.’ Mot. Br., Ex. 6.) Defendants argue that the specification states unequivocally, and without qualification, that a sensor must be placed in the side door structure. They further contend that, because the claims of the ’253 as construed by the court permit, but do not require, mounting at least an independent functional sensor on the side -door structure, the claims exceed the applicants’ described invention and are invalid under the written description requirement. In short, Defendants argue that because the Plaintiff obtained a broad claim construction permitting an independent sensor to be mounted at a location other than on the side door structure, the patent claims fail to meet the written description requirement. Conversely, Plaintiff deflects attention from the unambiguous statement in the specification relating to the essential location of a sensor in a side door structure. It argues that the claim language “between the centers of the front and rear wheels” is clearly disclosed and illustrated in Figure 4 of the ’253 patent and is fully described in the written text. (PL’s Resp. at 4.) In particular, Figure 4 of the ’253 patent shows multiple preferred places for mounting the single sensor and housing claimed in the invention. Figure 4 identifies places other than the side door or side door structure. The text also provides, “Fig. 4 shows a side view of a vehicle illustrating the preferred mounting locations of side impact sensors.” (’253 patent, col. 5, lines 49-50.) Plaintiff also cites column 8, lines 16-21 of the patent specification,'providing that: “[t]he thin pancake shape of the sensor of this invention lends itself to be easily mounted in the preferred locations for sensing side impacts. These locations include in the center of the side door 32, plus in front of the A-pillar 31 and just behind the B pillar 33 as shown in-Fig. 4.” (Id. at co. 8, lines 16-21.) Plaintiff -argues that Figure 4 and the text referring to Figure 4 would permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the disclosure clearly allows a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventors invented what is claimed, a sensor capable of being mounted onto a side of the vehicle “between the centers of the front and rear wheels.” (See Dix 11/11/04 Deel. at ¶¶ 3-9; PL’s Resp. Ex. A.) The failure to specifically mention a claim limitation that later appears in the claim language will not be fatal under the written description requirement “when one skilled in the art would recognize upon reading the specification that the new language reflects what the specification shows has been invented.”. All Dental Prodx, 309 F.3d at 779. In addition, one of ordinary skill may consider “words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc.” set forth in a specification. Cmm Operations, 289 F.3d at 1376. Under the appropriate circumstances, “drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by § 112.” Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1565. Conversely, “in a given ease, the scope of the right to exclude may be limited by a narrow disclosure.” Gentry Gallery Inc., 134 F.3d at 1479. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Gentry Gallery is persuasive in the current context. Gentry Gallery involved a patent directed to a unit of a sectional sofa in which two independent reeliners face the same direction. Gentry Gallery, Inc., 134 F.3d at 1474. The patent specification described placing “a console” between the two reeliners which faced in the same direction. Id. at 1475. The specification also stated that the console “accommodates the controls for both reclining seats.” Id. The Gentry court specifically noted that several claims in the patent were “directed to a sectional sofa in which the control means are specifically located on the console.” Id. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the patent’s disclosure did not support claims where the location of the recliner controls were placed in positions other than on the console. Id. at 1479. The district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, and, after a bench trial, held that the patent was not invalid, finding that “the claims in which the location of the controls is not limited to the console [were] not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.” Id. at 1476. The parties filed cross appeals on various rulings and the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, agreeing that the patent’s disclosure did not support claims that permitted the recliner controls to be located in positions other than on the console. Id. at 1479. In finding that the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous, the Gentry court explained: In this case, the original disclosure clearly identifies the console as the only possible location for the controls. It provides for only the most minor variation in the location of the controls, noting that the control “may be mounted on top or side surfaces of the console rather than on the front wall ... without departing from this invention.” ’244 patent, col. 2, line 68 to col. 3, line 3. No similar variation beyond the console is even suggested. Additionally, the only discernible purpose for the console is to house the controls. As the disclosure states, identifying the only purpose relevant to the console, “[ajnother object of the present invention is to provide ... a console positioned between [the reclining seats] that accommodates the controls for both of the reclining seats.” Id. at col. 1,11. 33-37. Thus, locating the controls anywhere but on the console is outside the stated purpose of the invention. Moreover, consistent with this disclosure, Sproule’s broadest original claim was directed to a sofa comprising, inter alia, “control means located upon the center console to enable each of the pair of reclining seats to move separately between the reclined and upright positions.” Finally, although not disposi-tive, because one can add claims to a pending application directed to adequately described subject matter, Sproule admitted at trial that he did not consider placing the controls outside the console until he became aware that some of Gentry’s competitors were so locating the recliner controls. Accordingly, when viewed in its entirety, the disclosure is limited to sofas in which the recliner control is located on the console. Id. at 1479. The Gentry Gallery court also explained that the inventor “considered the location of the recliner controls on the console to be an essential element of his invention.” Id. at 1480. While recognizing that “a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in the specification,” and that “an applicant is entitled to claims as broad as the prior art and his disclosure will allow,” the Gentry Gallery court found that “one skilled in the art would clearly understand that it was not only important, but essential, to [the] invention, for the controls to on the console.” Id. (emphasis added). Similarly, in this case, there is no genuine issue of material fact because one skilled in the art would clearly understand the unambiguous statement in the ’253 specification to require a side impact sensor to be placed on the side door structure of a vehicle. Like the disclosure in the patent considered by the Gentry Gallery court, the ’253 specification makes mounting onto a side door structure an essential part of the claimed invention by expressly teaching that “[a] crash sensor for sensing side impacts must be placed on the side door structure to be effective. This location is essential since it is sensing the velocity change of the portion of the vehicle which will eventually strike the occupant and therefore serves as a good predictor of V-cr.” (’253 patent, col. 4, lines 8-13 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff relies on Figure 4, the text of the specification referring to Figure 4, and Dr. Rollin Dix’s declaration as evidence supporting the existence of a triable issue of fact. The identification in Figure 4 of the specification of locations for mounting sensors in locations other than on the , side door structure, however, does not carry the day. Figure 4 must be read in conjunction with the written text of the specification, where it describes Figure 4 to include three sensors wired in parallel. (’253 patent, col. 8, lines 16-26.) It says nothing of a single independent sensor being mounted outside of the side door structure. (Id.) This portion of the specification is therefore entirely consistent with the inventor’s unambiguous statement that mounting onto the side door structure is essential for a side impact crash sensor to be effective. The plain meaning of the specification’s text provides clear and convincing evidence that the claimed invention must have a sensor mounted onto a vehicle’s side door structure. Dr. Dix’s declaration is also insufficient to create a triable issue of fact. Dix states that, in his opinion, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand from the patent specification that a single sensor could be mounted anywhere onto a side of the vehicle “between the centers and front and rear wheels.” (Dix. Deck at ¶¶ 5-7.) Dix relies on column 8, lines 16-26, and Figure 4 to opine that one skilled in the art would understand that the sensors shown in Figure 4 are wired in parallel and any one of the three sensors would provide protection. (Id. at 8.) He specifically states that “[t]he side door location is not essential.” (Id.) Conspicuously absent, however, from Dix’s declaration is any explanation for how one having ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the side door location is not essential in light of the express statement in the specification stating: “A crash sensor for sensing side impacts must be placed on the side door structure to be effective. This location is essential .... ” (’253 patent, col. 4, lines 8-10 (emphasis added).) The ’253 specification does not provide a written description supporting the claims construed to permit mounting of a side impact sensor at various locations between the centers and of the front and rear wheels without having at least one sensor mounted onto a side door structure. The specification teaches that at least one sensor must be mounted in the side door structure of a vehicle as an essential location for an effective sensor. As such, the court will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity for failure to comply with the written description requirement. III. DEFENDANTS’ ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS INVALIDITY MOTION In their second motion, Defendants argue that claims 1, 11, 20, 30, and 39 of the ’253 patent are invalid because: (1) these claims lack novelty and are anticipated by prior art; and (2) the differences between the invention’s claims and the pri- or 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). A. Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) By statute, a patented invention must be “new.” This requirement is tested in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent 35 U.S.C.A. § 102(a). A patent enjoys a presumption of validity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282. “Consequently, ‘a moving party seeking to invalidate a patent at summary judgment must submit such clear and convincing evidence of invalidity so that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.’ ” Chamar Sys., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 476, 491 (quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., 251 F.3d 955, 962 (Fed.Cir.2001)); see also Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718, 725 (Fed.Cir.2002) (A party seeking to establish particular claims as invalid must overcome the presumption of validity in 35 U.S.C. § 282 by clear and convincing evidence). “[Ajnticipation is a question of fact, [that] may be decided on summary judgment if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact.” Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2001) (citing General Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 179 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed.Cir.1999)); Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2001) (“Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 means lack of novelty, and is a question of fact.”). To anticipate, every limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference. Telemac Cellular Corp., 247 F.3d at 1327 (“A prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently, to anticipate.”); Beckson Marine, Inc., 292 F.3d at 725; Brown, 265 F.3d at 1351. Although all claim elements must be present in a single prior art reference, they may be found expressly or inherently. Telemac Cellular Corp., 247 F.3d at 1327-28; Advanced Display Sys. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“invalidity by anticipation requires that the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation”). Each prior art reference “must be ‘considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’ ” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed.Cir.1994) (citation omitted). “As [the Federal Circuit] has stated, ‘the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.” Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368-69 (Fed.Cir.2003) (quoting In re Baxter Tra-venol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed.Cir. 1991)). “A patent is invalid for anticipation when the same device or method, having all of the elements contained in the claim limitations, is described in a single prior art reference.” Crown Operations Int’l, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2002). Whether a claim element or limitation is inherent in a prior art reference is also a question of fact. Telemac Cellular Corp., 247 F.3d at 1328. To be inherently disclosed, the missing claim limitation or characteristic “must be necessarily present [in the prior art reference such that] a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize its presence.” Crown Operations Int’l, Ltd., 289 F.3d at 1377; see also MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.Cir.1999) (prior art must necessarily function in accordance with or include the claimed limitations). As the Federal Circuit has explained, Under the doctrine of inherency, if an element is not expressly disclosed in a prior art reference, the reference will still be deemed to anticipate a subsequent claim if the missing element “is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” Cont’l Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed.Cir.1991). “Inherent anticipation requires that the missing descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.” Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295, 63 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed.Cir.2002) (quoting In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed.Cir.1999)). Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2002) (emphasis added). Inherence “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp., 192 F.3d at 1365. “The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Crown Operations, Ltd., 289 F.3d at 1377. B. Whether Claims 1, 11, 20, 30 and 39 are Anticipated by the Prior Art In their motion, Defendants identify the 1927 Marsh patent (Defs.’ Mot. Br. at Ex. 9), the 1973 Schmidt patent (Id. at Ex. 10), the 1972 Kendall patent (Id. at Ex. 11), the 1972 Jones patent (Id. at Ex. 14), and the 1981 Breed patent (Id. at Ex. 13) as prior art references that allegedly anticipate the ’253 patent. Although Defendants identify these five patents, their argument principally relies on the Marsh and Schmidt patents. Defendants argue that the Marsh and Schmidt patents anticipate because no reasonable jury could conclude that these prior art references do not disclose every limitation found in claims 1, 11, 20, 30 and 39 of the ’253 patent. Of these five claims, three claims are independent (claims 1, 20, and 30). Two are dependent (claims 11 and 30). Claim 11 depends on claim 1 and claim 39 depends on claim 30. (See ’253 patent.) Because a dependent claim will not be anticipated if the claim upon which it depends does not anticipate, see Hartness Inti v. Simplimatic Eng’g Co., 819 F.2d 1100, 1107-08 (Fed.Cir.1987), the court’s analysis focuses on the independent claims. Claim 1 provides: A side impact crash sensor for a vehicle having front and rear wheels, said sensor comprising: (a) a housing; (b) a mass within said housing movable relative to said housing in response to accelerations of said housing; (c) means responsive to the motion of said mass upon acceleration of said housing in excess of a predetermined threshold value, for initiating an occupant protection apparatus; and (d) means for mounting said housing onto at least one of a side door of the vehicle and a side of the vehicle between the centers of the front and rear wheels, in such a position and a direction as to sense an impact into the side of said vehicle (’253 patent Claim 1.) Figure 1 of the ’253 patent, shown below, is representative of Claim 1. The housing 13 contains a hinged flapper 11 and two contacts 17 and 18. Contact 17 is bent so that it may serve as a spring biasing the flapper in its initial position. When the sensor housing undergoes an acceleration of significant magnitude, the inertia of the flapper is forced upward relative to the housing and overcomes the bias force causing the contacts 17 and 19 to touch completing an electrical circuit and initiating the safety device. (’253 patent col. 6, lines 4-32.) Defendants first correctly note that “[i]t is undisputed that devices for sensing side impact crashes used in vehicles having front and rear wheels were known in the art.” (See, e.g., Marsh patent, Figs. 1 & 2 and p. 2, 35-45; Schmidt patent, col. 2, lines 6-10.) The Schmidt patent specifically discloses the use of lateral impact sensors. The Schmidt specification describes an embodiment of the invention as follows: FIG. 3 shows a further embodiment, wherein there is a first crash impact current generator 32 disposed to be activated by a head-on collision, as indicated above. In addition, there is right-hand crash impact current generator 32a disposed to be activated by a lateral crash impact from the right. There is a third current generator 32b at the left-hand side of the automobile 12, to similarly [be] activated by a crash impact from the left-hand side of the car. (Schmidt patent, col. 3, lines 32-40.) Figure 3 of the Schmidt patent is shown below. Figure 3 presents a bird’s eye view of a vehicle with a crash restraint device comprising an inflatable bag mounted forward of the vehicle’s passenger seat, a gas source to supply inflating gas, an electrically actuated initiating device for the gas source, and means to generate an electric current to activate the gas source. 0Schmidt patent Claim 1, col. 3 & 4.) The air bag #20 is shown coming from the steering wheel # 10. The right-hand and left-hand crash impact current generators described above are shown at # 32b and # 32a. Defendants argue that each of the elements of Claim 1 are taught by the Marsh and Schmidt references. Claim 1(a) “a housing” With regard to element (a) of claim 1, “a housing,” Defendants argue that this feature is inherently disclosed in the Marsh and Schmidt patents “because including a housing to mount and protect the sensor would be assumed by person of ordinary skill in the art, necessarily flowing from the teachings of these references and such a person’s inherent knowledge of the art.” (Defs.’ Mot. Br. at 10.) Defendants cite the ’253 inventor’s (David S. Breed’s) own prior art crash sensor to support this argument. The Breed patent (U.S. Patent No. 4,284,863) discloses a sensor “adapted to be enclosed within a sturdy casing or housing.” {Breed patent, col. 3, lines 22-23.) Defendants also cite the Jones patent for the proposition that “providing housings [for sensors] [was] known in the art and, at a bare minimum, [merely reflected] an obvious design choice.” (Defs.’ Mot. Br. at 11 (citing Jones patent, col. 10, lines 7-9).) The Jones patent describes components of a “complete unidirectional impact sensor switch” with “[a] water resistant and dust proof cover ... coaxially disposed around the active components of the impact sensor.” {Id.) Claim 1(b) “mass ... movable relative to said housing ...” Next, Defendants argue that the Marsh and Schmidt references disclose element (b) of Claim 1, “a mass within said housing movable relative to said housing in response to accelerations of said housing.” Marsh describes a sensor comprised of “inertia operating switching elements.” It states, “in [the] event of [a] collision ... the inertia of the pivoted arm 34 [the asserted equivalent to the movable mass in the ’253 patent] will cause this arm to overcome the action of the light spring 37 and bring the contacts 35 and 36 into engagement.” {Marsh patent, p. 2, lines 56-61 & Fig. 7 (Defs.’ Ex. 9).) The movable mass is the pivoted arm 34 which moves in response to accelerations of side impacts, i.e. based on its inertia experienced during a collision. {See id.) Figure 7 shows a Marsh sensor mounted on the exterior of a vehicle as depicted below. Similarly, the Schmidt patent discloses a movable mass to sense a head-on impact and lateral crash impacts. The crash responsive current generating device of the present invention is generally designed 32 and comprises an inertial slug or mass 34 which is magnetized in a manner that its opposite poles are located at its front and rear end. This inertial mass 34 is connected by a breakable connection 36 to the automobile frame 38. In circumstances of ordinary acceleration and deceleration of the automobile 14, the accelerating forces on the mass 34 will not be sufficient to break the connection 36. However, in a crash impact situation which generates a decelerating force of a predetermined value, the connection 36 will break to permit the inertial force on the mass 34 to cause it to pass through the inductance coil 40. (Schmidt patent, col. 2, lines 53-67 & col. 3, lines 1-4; see also Schmidt patent, col. 3, lines 33^10 & Figs. 2 and 3.) Figure 2 is depicted below. Claim 1(c) “means responsive to the motion of said mass ... for initiating an occupant protection apparatus” Element (c) of Claim 1 requires a “means responsive to the motion of said mass upon acceleration of said housing in excess of a predetermined threshold value, for initiating an occupant protection apparatus.” This means-plus-function limitation has the function of “initiating an occupant protection apparatus,” and the court identified the corresponding structure as follows: Corresponding structure includes mechanical switches with two contacts that engage in response to a force of sufficient magnitude and duration, and their equivalents. The specification identifies such mechanical switches in Figures 1 and 2 at column 6, lines 7-32; Figure 5 at column 8, lines 53-60; Figure 6 at column 8, lines 61-66; and Figures 8 and 9, lines 30-60. Corresponding structure also includes an electronic switch or assembly as described in Figure 11 at column 10, lines 3-14 of the patent specification and its equivalents. The electronic switch or assembly contains a sensing mass that moves relative to the housing in response to the acceleration of the housing caused by a side impact crash. (03/31/04 Markman Order at 6.) Marsh teaches this recited means for initiating by expressly disclosing “switches ... consisting] of contact elements” which are “brought into engagement by impact transversely of the vehicle.” (Marsh patent, Fig. 7, p. 1, lines 63-67 and p. 2, lines 10-12, 46-65, 54, 83-94, and 103-08.) Similar to the ’253 patent, Marsh teaches that in the event of a collision, the force generated brings a pair of contacts together, causing a circuit to initiate the protection device. (Id.) Schmidt describes this claim limitation by disclosing an electronic switch having a mass that moves in response to an acceleration of a predetermined value to close a circuit, thereby initiating an air bag. (See Schmidt patent, col. 2 line 65 — col. 3, line 13 (portions cited above).) Claim 1(d) “means for mounting ...” Lastly, with regard to Claim 1, Defendants assert that element (d), “means for mounting said housing onto at least one of a side door of the vehicle and a side of the vehicle ... in such a position and a direction as to sense an impact into the side of said vehicle,” is taught by Marsh and Schmidt. In Marsh, the specification states: “I preferably provide the sides of the vehicle with inertia operating switching elements ... [which] include a contact support 32 having means, as at 33, whereby they may be rigidly secured to the running board or other portion of the vehicle.” (Marsh patent, p. 2, lines 42-50 (emphasis added).) Schmidt teaches this means for mounting limitation by disclosing a side impact sensor 32a mounted on the right side of the car to sense an impact to the right side. (See Schmidt, col. 3, lines 32-44.) Conversely, Plaintiff argues that Marsh and Schmidt each fail to disclose, teach, or even suggest a “housing” as required by all of the claims at issue. Plaintiff relies on proposed expert testimony to support its contention. (Dix Decl. at ¶¶ 6-10.) According to Dr. Dix, Plaintiffs proposed expert, Neither [the Marsh nor the Schmidt] patents anticipate[] the Claims because they each are missing several limitations of the Claims. For example, the Marsh and Schmidt patents each fail to disclose, teach, or even suggest a “housing” as required by the Claims. I note that the housing feature is an important element of the Claims because most, if not all, of the other limitations of the Claims are specifically interrelated to and require the claims housing feature. For example, Claim 1 requires (a) a “housing” (b) a “mass within said housing” where the mass is “movable relative to the housing” (c) means responsive to the motion of the mass “upon acceleration of said housing” in excess of a predetermined threshold value, for initiating an occupant protection apparatus; and (d) “means for mounting said housing” onto at least one of a side door of the vehicle and a side ... (Id. at ¶ 7 (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted).) Dix also opines that Claims 20 and 30 are not anticipated because the prior art references do not contain all of their claim limitations. (See id. at ¶¶ 8, 9.) It is undisputed that neither Marsh nor Schmidt expressly disclose or require a housing for the sensors claimed in those patents. Rather, the parties’ dispute regarding anticipation turns on whether the “housing” limitation and those limitations reciting functions in relation to such housing of the ’253 claims are inherently disclosed (along with all other claim elements) in at least one of the single prior art references identified. As explained above, whether a single prior art reference inherently discloses a claim element is an issue of fact. The party asserting invalidity based on anticipation must present clear and convincing evidence that the missing element is necessarily present in the reference and that it would be recognized as such by one having ordinary skill in the art. See Telemac Cellular Corp., 247 F.3d at 1328; Crown Operations Int’l, 289 F.3d at 1375; Rosco, 304 F.3d at 1380. It is not enough that the limitation is possible or probable based on the prior art reference. See MEHL/Bi-ophile Int’l Corp., 192 F.3d at 1365. Although one having ordinary skill in the art would almost certainly practice the invention in Marsh with a protective housing to avoid corrosion of and to provide protection for the contact elements, Defendants have not carried their burden to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the housing limitation present in the ’253 claims is necessarily present in Marsh or any other single prior art reference considered in isolation. Defendants cite the Breed patent at column 3, lines 7-9, 21-23, and 29-30 as well as the Jones patent, column 10, lines 7-9 as evidence that the housing limitation is inherently disclosed and that the claimed housing would be “assumed” by one having ordinary skill in the art. This evidence, however, fails to explain how the missing “housing” limitation is “necessarily present” and not “merely probably or possibly present” in the prior art references cited. See Rosco, Inc., 304 F.3d at 1380. Defendants present a strong case that the sensors in Marsh and Schmidt would most likely, if not always, be practiced with a protective housing. The focus of the court’s anticipation analysis, however, centers on each single reference of prior art and whether the prior art necessarily functions with the inherent element. A general assumption that would probably be made by one having ordinary skill in the art is not sufficient to find that the prior art necessarily includes a housing. The issue is whether one skilled in the art would read the Marsh or Schmidt patents as inherently showing or requiring a housing for the sensor described therein to function. See id. Defendants’ evidence includes the use of a housing in the Breed patent for velocity change sensors and the use of a “water resistant and dust proof cover” in the Jones patent for a personal restraint system for vehicle occupants. (See Defs.’ Mot. Br., Exs. 13 & 14.) Citing the use of a protective sensor housings in patents other than Marsh and Schmidt (the prior art references alleged to anticipate) does not explain how a person with ordinary skill in the art would necessarily find a housing disclosed by the Marsh or Schmidt patents. This evidence of widespread use of housings for crash impact sensors is more relevant to whether there was a motivation to combine the prior art in such a manner that rendered the use of a sensor housing obvious at the time of the ’253 patent. See Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1267 (Fed.Cir.1991) (“When more than one reference is required to establish unpatenta-bility of the claimed invention anticipation under § 102 ean[not] be found, and validity is determined in terms of § 103.”). Defendants’ citation to other patents using a protective housing establishes only the strong probability or possibility that a protective sensor housing would be used for sensors in practicing the Marsh or Schmidt patents. For instance, the Jones prior art reference describes a water resistant and dust proof cover. (Defs.’ Mot. Br. Ex. 14, Jones Patent at col. 10 lines 8-10.) This evidence must be examined along with Dix’s sworn declaration explaining, the importance of the housing limitation and his opinion that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that a housing is necessarily present in the sensors shown and described [in the prior art references].” (Dix. Decl. at ¶¶ 6-14.) When taking all of the evidence in a light-most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendants’ evidence is not sufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the “housing” limitation is inherently disclosed in the Marsh or the Schmidt patent. The record does not foreclose a reasonable jury from concluding that Defendants have not met their burden to establish invalidity based on anticipation by clear and convincing evidence. In their reply brief, Defendants cite fifteen additional prior art references (patents) to support their argument that the “body of prior art provides unbiased, contemporaneous proof that inclusion of a sensor housing would be assumed.” (Defs.’ Reply at 2, n. 2, & Exs. 16-30.) This evidence tends to establish the widespread use of protective housings used to encase crash sensors, but does not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that a single prior art reference anticipates the ’253 claims. (See Defs.’ Reply Brief at Exs. 15-30.) Despite potentially strong arguments for anticipation by the Marsh patent, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment of invalidity, as a matter of law, based on anticipation of the ’253 claims in the prior art. C. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 A patent may not be obtained ... 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 to which said subject matter pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). “An obviousness inquiry assesses ‘the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art’ to ascertain whether ‘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 to which said subject matter pertains.’ ” Beckson Marine, Inc., 292 F.3d at 725 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). “The grant of summary judgment of invalidity for obviousness must be done on a claim by claim basis.” Knoll Pharm. Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc., 367 F.3d 1381, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2004). A patent claim is invalid as obvious when the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that one having ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the entire subject matter as obvious at the time the invention was made. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 14, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). A patent’s presumption of validity requires that “[t]he accused infringer ... prove by clear and convincing evidence that each claim that is challenged cannot reasonably be held to be non-obvious.” Id. (citing Monarch Knitting Machinery Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH, 139 F.3d 877, 881 (Fed.Cir.1998)). Clear and convincing evidence exists when the movant “place[s] in the mind of the ultimate fact finder an abiding conviction that the truth of its factual contentions are ‘highly probable.’ ” Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316, 104 S.Ct. 2433, 81 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984). Obviousness is ultimately a legal determination, but is based on several underlying issues of fact. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 663 (Fed.Cir.2000). “[F]actual inquiries must be made concerning: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations of nonobvi-ousness ... [which often include] commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need, failure of others, copying, and unexpected results,” the so-called Graham factors. Id. (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18, 86 S.Ct. 684.) As to. the underlying facts, the movant retains, the burden to establish them by clear and convincing evidence. McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2001). However, as noted by the Federal Circuit in EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 905 (Fed.Cir.1985), the burden to show obviousness “is more easily carried” when, as in this case, the prior art relied on in the federal district court was not before the Patent Trademark Office (“PTO”) during examination or reexamination of the patent. Giora George Angres, Ltd. v. Tinny Beauty and Figure, Inc., 116 F.3d 1497, 1997 WL 355479, at *2 (Fed. Cir.1997) (citing EWP Corp., 755 F.2d at 905.). “This is so because ‘[the court has] no PTO view before [it]’ on the references in question.” Id.; see also American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, 725 F.2d 1350, 1359 (Fed.Cir.1984) (“What the production of new prior art or other invalidating evidence not before the PTO does is to eliminate, or at least reduce, the element of deference due the PTO, thereby partially, if not wholly, discharging the attacker’s burden, but neither shifting nor lightening it or changing the standard of proof.”). Plaintiff does not dispute that the Marsh and Schmidt patents were not before the PTO examiner as prior art. Federal Circuit precedent also “clearly establishes that the district court must make Graham findings before invalidating a patent for obviousness.” Ruiz, 234 F.3d at 663. When obviousness is based on the teachings found in multiple prior art references, the moving party must establish some “suggestion, teaching, or motivation,” that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant prior art teachings in the manner claimed. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir.1999). This may be found in (1) the prior art references themselves, (2) the knowledge of those with ordinary skill in the art that certain references, or disclosures, are of special interest or importance in the field, or (3) from the nature of the problem to be solved. Ruiz, 234 F.3d at 665. Courts are cautioned against the application of hindsight in making factual findings relating to the four obviousness factors. As one panel of the Federal Circuit recently noted: “Our case law makes clear that the best defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or motivation to combine prior art references.” [In re] Dembiczak, 175 F.3d [994] at 999 [(Fed.Cir.1999)]; see also Ruiz, 234 F.3d at 665 (explaining that the temptation to engage in impermissible hindsight is especially strong with seemingly simple mechanical inventions). This is because “[c]ombining pri- or art references without evidence of such a suggestion, teaching, or motivation simply takes the inventor’s disclosure as a blueprint for piecing together the prior art to defeat patentability — the essence of hindsight.” Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999. Therefore, we have consistently held that a person of ordinary skill in the art must not only have had some motivation to combine the prior art teachings, but some motivation to combine the prior art teachings in the particular manner claimed. See, e.g., In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed.Cir. 2000) (“Particular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these components for combination in the manner claimed.” (emphasis added)); In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (“In other words, the examiner must show reasons that the skilled artisan, confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art references for combination in the manner claimed.” (emphasis added)). Teleflex, Inc. v. KSR Intern. Co., 119 Fed. Appx. 282, 285-86, 2005 WL 23377, at *3 (Fed.Cir. Jan.6, 2005). The non-moving party may also present evidence showing non-obviousness or refuting the movant’s case. See WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’t Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed.Cir. 1999). D. Graham Factors 1. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art First, the parties do not dispute the level of skill possessed by one with reasonable skill in the art. For purposes of this motion, Defendants agree with Plaintiffs view on this issue. Plaintiff has repeatedly maintained that “the level of ordinary skill in the art is defined by a person having a four-year degree in mechanical, electro-mechanical or automotive engineering, plus several years [of] experience in the field or the equivalent.” (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 5, 17.) As such, for purposes of deciding this motion, the court may presume this to be the level of skill possessed by one reasonably skilled in the art. See Richardsorir-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1481 (Fed.Cir.1997) (parties did not dispute the level of ordinary skill). 2. Scope and Content of the Prior Art Notably, Plaintiff does not contest that the Marsh, Schmidt, Jones, Kendall, and Breed patents constitute relevant prior art that one with ordinary skill in the art could consider alone or in combination. {See Defs.’ Mot. Br. at Exs. 9-11, 13-14.) Nor does Plaintiff challenge the validity of the fifteen patents cited in Defendants’ reply brief on the basis that these references do not constitute prior art that would have been considered by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’253 patent prosecution. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the court should strike the exhibits attached to Defendants’ reply brief because they were not included in the original motion. Although Plaintiff correctly states that it did not have an opportunity to address these exhibits in its response, it has not sought leave to file a sur-reply brief to address the merits of these exhibits as representative references within the prior art. If Plaintiff had serious substantive objections to these exhibits it should have offered them during oral argument or at least sought leave to file a sur-reply brief to address the materials. Despite the c