When determining differences under 35 U.S.C. 103, what should be considered?

The correct answer focuses on the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. In the context of 35 U.S.C. 103, which addresses non-obviousness, it's essential to evaluate how the claimed invention differs from what has already been disclosed in the prior art. This helps determine whether the invention is sufficiently innovative or whether it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.

Evaluating these differences involves considering elements like the claimed features, their functionality, and how they contribute to the overall invention. This assessment is critical because if the differences are such that the claimed invention would have been obvious given the prior art, then it may not qualify for a patent.

Other aspects, such as legal texts or academic opinions, don’t play a direct role in assessing the patentability under 35 U.S.C. 103. The focus must remain on tangible differences that can be analyzed and evaluated in the context of prior art. Consequently, considering differences specifically between the existing art and the new claims is foundational to the examination of non-obviousness.