Is Cobalt’s claim of obviousness justified?

In some cases, what is at issue is a “mosaic” of prior art, that is, disparate pieces of information which the person skilled in the art would have been required to know and combine in order to reach the claimed invention. In Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc., 2008 FC 825, 67 C.P.R. (4th) 241, aff’d 2009 FCA 222, 75 C.P.R. (4th) 443 [Servier], Justice Snider described the “mosaic” scenario, and what the party alleging obviousness must demonstrate, in the following terms: [ ] Even uninventive skilled technicians would be presumed to read a number of professional journals, attend different conferences and apply the learnings from one source to another setting or even combine the sources. However, in doing so, the party claiming obviousness must be able to demonstrate not only that the prior art exists but how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine the relevant components from the mosaic of prior art: at para. 254. ii) Is Cobalt’s Allegation of Obviousness Justified?