A prima facie case of obviousness requires which of the following?

A prima facie case of obviousness in patent law is established when all elements of the claimed invention are found in the prior art, either individually or in some combination that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. This reflects the statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which states that a patent may not be obtained if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.

To demonstrate obviousness, it is necessary to show that each element of the claimed invention is present in prior art references or that those references combined would lead a person skilled in the field to the claimed invention. This foundational understanding is critical in patent law, as it underscores that simply combining known elements or teachings from prior inventions can lead one to an obvious outcome.

The other choices do not meet the requirements for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. For example, new teachings in the prior art are insufficient on their own unless they relate directly to the claim. An inventor’s personal statement of intent does not carry weight in the legal analysis of obviousness because it reflects subjective intentions rather