Obviousness is determined based on the skill level of which of the following?

Obviousness in patent law is assessed based on the perspective of individuals with skill in the art, often referred to as a "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA). This standard recognizes that the level of skill and knowledge of these individuals serves as the benchmark for determining whether an invention is obvious.

The rationale behind this approach is that the inventiveness of an idea must be compared to what someone skilled in that particular field would recognize as innovative or non-obvious, taking into account their expertise, experience, and understanding of the relevant technology at the time of the invention. This understanding helps to prevent patenting trivial advancements that anyone with ordinary skill in the art could have devised.

The other options do not reflect the established legal standard. The general public may lack the specialized knowledge needed to assess the technical merits of an invention. Patents and trademark specialists are trained in legal aspects rather than the specific technological fields. Historical inventors, while they may provide context or inspiration, do not align with the contemporary skill level that is relevant to current patent examinations. Therefore, the correct choice of individuals with skill in the art aligns perfectly with the legal framework surrounding obviousness determinations.