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

The USPTO emphasizes the importance of objective evidence when determining the obviousness of a patent claim, particularly advocating for data that demonstrates clear, predictable variations within the relevant field of art. This type of evidence is crucial because it helps establish a basis for assessing whether the differences between prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.

When variations are clear and predictable, they indicate that the advancements made by the inventor may not represent an inventive step but rather an expected development based on existing knowledge. This aligns with the standards set forth in the Graham factors, which guide the obviousness analysis by considering the prior art, differences from the claimed invention, the level of ordinary skill in the field, and any secondary considerations such as commercial success or long-felt but unsolved needs.

In contrast, evidence that is vague, hypothetical, or irrelevant does not provide a solid foundation for making a determination about obviousness. This is because such evidence does not reliably inform a conclusion regarding what would have been obvious at the time of the invention, thus failing to meet the rigorous standards of patentability required by the USPTO. Therefore, the emphasis on data that shows clear and predictable variations is essential for