What type of evidence does the USPTO suggest when determining the obviousness of a patent claim?

The USPTO emphasizes the importance of using clear and predictable variations within the relevant field when evaluating the obviousness of a patent claim. This approach aligns with the standard set by the courts in which a determination of obviousness is rooted in what is known and established in the art. By relying on data that shows these clear variations, examiners can better assess whether the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made.

This kind of evidence directly supports the notion that a combination of existing knowledge could logically lead to the claimed invention without requiring a moment of invention. It underscores the idea that if the differences are small and well understood, they may not meet the threshold for non-obviousness. Thus, this form of evidence is both relevant and goal-oriented, leading to a clearer understanding of the scope of obviousness.

The other options do not provide the needed rigor. Vague historical references, hypothetical experimental evidence, or any available references, regardless of their relevance, do not effectively contribute to a sound analysis of obviousness and can lead to misleading conclusions about the nature of the invention’s originality.