“May a challenger in an obviousness case show the requisite ‘motivat[ion] to combine the teachings of the prior art references,’ Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted), by relying exclusively on the generalized motivation to improve upon the prior art and prior art references disclosing innumerable options, in the absence of any articulated reason to select and combine the particular claim elements to arrive at the invention.”
