With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". support a finding of nonobviousness. See Perfect Web, 587 F.3d at 1332 (rejecting a nonobviousness position that was “merely attorney argument lacking evidentiary support”). Thus, we find that the district court’s reliance, in finding nonobviousness, on the amount of time and money that both parties had spent on developing formless systems was misplaced. Moreover, weak secondary considerations generally do not overcome a strong prima facie case of obviousness. See Media Techs. Licensing, LLC v. Upper Deck Co., 596 F.3d 1334, (Fed.Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 305, 178 L.Ed.2d 144 (2010) (“Even if [the patentee] could establish the required nexus, a highly successful product alone would not overcome the strong showing of obviousness.”); Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d at 1162 (<HOLDING>). Here, where the inventions represented no

A: holding that once a plaintiff has met its burden in showing that an injunction is necessary no delay in the issuance of that injunction is appropriate absent extraordinary considerations here there are no extraordinary circumstances or considerations only the relatively standard posttrial motions
B: holding that the objective considerations of nonobviousness presented including substantial evidence of commercial success praise and longfelt need were inadequate to overcome a strong showing of primary considerations that rendered the claims at issue invalid
C: holding that counsels success was not extraordinary in light of the evidence presented at trial and the noncomplexity of the case
D: holding that success on a motion to sever requires a strong showing of prejudice
B.