{"id":12162,"date":"2023-06-20T22:56:23","date_gmt":"2023-06-21T04:56:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=12162"},"modified":"2023-06-20T23:17:04","modified_gmt":"2023-06-21T05:17:04","slug":"chaotic-bricolage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=12162","title":{"rendered":"Chaotic bricolage"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>We all have probably encountered an obviousness argument that cobbled together references in an unconvincing manner.  In this earlier post, such a combination was aptly described as a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=8322\">Frankenstein<\/a> combination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I was trying to think of some other phrases that the Federal Circuit could use in future opinions to describe such combinations of features\/elements\/limitations\/references.  Here are a few suggestions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>a chaotic bricolage<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>an omnium gatherum<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>a wishful patchwork<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>a cacophonous medley<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>an unpalatable goulash<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>a conglomeration abomination<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>an unfettered quilt <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>a motley melange<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>a concocted Chimera<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>a chimeric concoction<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>a synthetic snarl<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>an incongruous union<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>a monster mishmash<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-4-3 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Bobby Pickett &quot;Monster Mash&quot;\" width=\"450\" height=\"338\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/vNuVifA7DSU?start=45&#038;feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>We all have probably encountered an obviousness argument that cobbled together references in an unconvincing manner. In this earlier post, such a combination was aptly described as a Frankenstein combination. I was trying to think of some other phrases that the Federal Circuit could use in future opinions to describe such combinations of features\/elements\/limitations\/references. Here [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12162"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12162"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12162\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12172,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12162\/revisions\/12172"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}