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

In the context of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., "obvious to try" pertains specifically to the idea that when there exists a finite number of predictable solutions to a particular problem, one can reasonably expect that trying these solutions would lead to success. This principle asserts that if a person skilled in the art can identify a limited number of potential solutions that could feasibly solve a problem, then it would not involve an inventive step to try them.

This notion is anchored in the recognition that the patent system should not grant exclusivity for inventions that do not sufficiently advance the art beyond what is already known. Therefore, when a prior art reference suggests a clear path with known alternatives to solve a particular problem, testing those alternatives does not meet the non-obviousness requirement.

Other options diverge from this fundamental principle. For instance, the idea of random experimentation does not imply a structured approach where a finite set of solutions exists. Personal preference for inventions is subjective and does not relate to the objective analysis of what is obvious to a skilled practitioner. Lastly, suggesting a completely new approach moves beyond the confines of what is merely "obvious to try," as it implies innovation rather than iteration or exploration of known paths.

This highlights the