Which of the following is a criterion for patentability outlined in 35 U.S.C. § 103?

The criterion for patentability outlined in 35 U.S.C. § 103 specifically states that an invention must not be obvious to someone skilled in the art at the time the invention was made. This means that the invention must represent a sufficient level of innovation that it is not simply a logical or predictable development based on prior knowledge and existing technologies in the field. The assessment of obviousness takes into account various factors, including the scope and content of prior art, differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and the level of skill in the pertinent art.

In the context of patent law, the requirement of non-obviousness serves to ensure that patents are granted only for truly novel inventions that advance technology rather than for ideas that any competent professional in the field could have easily derived. Therefore, if an invention is deemed obvious, it cannot meet this criterion for patentability and will be rejected by the patent office.

The other choices reflect different considerations for patentability. For example, while an invention must indeed not have been discounted in prior art, the specific focus of 35 U.S.C. § 103 is on the idea of non-obviousness as a pivotal determinant for patent eligibility.