Which of these factors is not considered when assessing the obviousness of a claimed invention?

When assessing obviousness, the evaluation typically focuses on factors such as prior art, the relevance of existing inventions, and the technological landscape surrounding the claimed invention. The commercial success of similar inventions can also play a role in illustrating whether an invention meets the threshold of non-obviousness, as it may suggest that the solution provided by the invention was not readily apparent to someone skilled in the field.

In contrast, the inventor's personal motivations do not constitute a factor that is relevant to the legal standard of obviousness. The operative standard reviews the invention through the lens of a hypothetical person skilled in the art, ignoring subjective aspects related to the inventor's state of mind or intentions. This focus on objective criteria ensures that the assessment is based on readily available knowledge and resources rather than personal circumstances, which might vary greatly among different inventors. Thus, the inventor’s motivations are extrinsic to the legal determination of obviousness.