What is the “obvious to try” rationale for obviousness?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

The “obvious to try” rationale for obviousness can be used when:

• There is a recognized problem or need in the art
• There are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the problem
• One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success

As stated in the MPEP: “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”” MPEP 2143