gg and raf
I think there will not be NO case law the way you state it to find because the secondary considerations are designed to work WITH the prima facie obviousness analysis (not overcome it) always serving to act as a guard against hind sight bias and prejudgement of obviousness...exactly the honey traps laid by the Generics that Du fell into. It is not that secondary considerations overcome but more that they act in concert with proper evaluation of prima facie obviousness by Graham criteria 1-3:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the art when the invention was made
2. Ascertaining the differences between that art and the claim(s) at issue
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art when the invention was made
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness when the invention was made
4 cross checks 1-3 meaning IF the examiner finds objective indicia credible, then they are bound in principle to go back and reassess 1-3 NOT try some mathematical invention where you create a point system and add and subtract according to a weighting formula of the examiner's invention...This is why the Appeals has to pass judgement on Singer thesis number 2 "weighting of objective indicia"...it is too important a concept to duck by the Appeals, and if avoided or ignored by CAFC the Supreme Court will have to address it because it goes to a corruption of the logic they set out as framework after Graham vs. Deere in 1966. Thus far case precedential law has kicked the ball of G vs.D around satisfactorily but Du has kicked the ball out of the playing field and the referee has to step in. I believe it is landmark case because of this alone, and it is parenthetically why Singer will stamp his name on this issue no matter what the outcome.
May be lawyers differ in their view. Thats my read anyway
North? Hamoa? Marjac? Eight?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
