What are the rationales supporting obviousness conclusions after KSR?

Following KSR, the MPEP outlines several rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness:

1. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results
2. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results
3. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way
4. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results
5. “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success
6. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
7. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention

The MPEP notes: “The Court in KSR identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper ‘functional approach’ to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.”

To learn more:

• Obviousness rationales
• KSR decision
• Patent examination
• Graham factors