What does "obvious to try" refer to in the context of KSR rationales?

In the context of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the phrase "obvious to try" is used to describe a situation where a person skilled in the art might consider the proposed invention as something that is readily achievable through experimentation because there are only a finite number of predictable solutions or alternatives to select from.

This rationale reflects the idea that when there are only a limited number of options available and those options are specified, it becomes reasonable for someone to attempt them, as they would likely lead to a solution that is expected or known. For instance, if a problem has a few clear pathways or methods to achieve a desired outcome, then pursuing those avenues can be seen as obvious rather than inventive.

This concept distinguishes "obvious to try" from other notions of inventiveness or creativity, suggesting that the mere act of trying certain solutions does not contribute to the patentability of an invention when it can be established that the solutions are within the grasp of someone skilled in the field and can be arrived at through routine experimentation.