Which of the following is one of the KSR rationales for obviousness?

The correct answer highlights one of the key rationales established by the Supreme Court in the KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. case regarding the standard for determining obviousness in patent law. The KSR decision emphasized that simply combining previously known elements using known methods could render a claimed invention obvious.

In this context, if a person of ordinary skill in the art can take prior art components and combine them in a way that is predictable and straightforward, then the invention may not meet the threshold of non-obviousness required for patentability. This rationale reinforces the notion that the obviousness inquiry is not just about whether the individual parts exist but also about how they could be combined using common knowledge within the field. The KSR case moved the legal standards towards evaluating inventions more flexibly, taking into account the common practices and knowledge in the relevant technical field, rather than requiring a strict teaching or suggestion in the prior art.

The other choices center around ideas that do not align with the KSR ruling. Complete originality in design, for instance, is not a requisite for patentability, as patents can be granted for improvements and variations as long as there is sufficient non-obviousness. Similarly, while inventions may indeed need to demonstrate some level of