GO1 PTY, LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC.

GO1 PTY, LTD. v. OPENSESAME, INC. The Federal Circuit held that substantial evidence did not support the Board's finding that Go1's expert testimony on motivation to modify was conclusory. The court vacated and remanded for the Board to reconsider obviousness consistent with the opinion. The decision reinforces that, for simple and predictable sequencing changes, expert testimony grounded in a POSA's common sense and ordinary creativity may be enough without a separate prior-art reference expressly teaching the exact sequence. Vacated and remanded; costs awarded to appellant Go1. The claim required the licensing/reporting server to verify license validity and, upon verification, provide a location designator for accessing the content player. Madison disclosed the reverse order—providing a redirector file before access verification—and the Board found that gap fatal to Go1's obviousness challenge. Go1's expert testified that the sequencing difference was insubstantial and would have been an obvious design choice to a skilled artisan combining Madison with Sperle. The Federal Circuit held the Board applied too rigid an approach under KSR by discounting ordinary creativity, common sense, and the finite, predictable nature of the two sequencing options. The court did not hold the claims unpatentable; it remanded for further PTAB proceedings. § 103 remand non-precedential § 103 remand non-precedential § 103 remand