You’ve built something new. Maybe it’s code. Maybe it’s hardware. Maybe it’s a new way of using existing tech. It’s working. It’s exciting. And now you’re thinking: should I patent this? Then someone throws out a scary phrase: “Section 103 obviousness.”
What is “Motivation to Combine”?
The Business Impact Behind the Legal Language
For most founders, “motivation to combine” sounds like a dry, legal phrase.
But behind that technical label lies a real business risk: someone at the patent office deciding your innovation isn’t innovative enough.
This decision isn’t based on how useful your idea is, how well it works, or how many people want to buy it.
It hinges on whether the examiner believes someone else could have reasonably combined existing ideas the way you did—before you did.
That’s the part that trips up even the smartest startups.
Because in a fast-moving space, many of your ideas do rely on building blocks that already exist. But that’s not the issue.
The issue is whether the specific way you combined them would have seemed obvious to someone else in your industry at the time.
If it does? You’re out of luck.
But if it doesn’t? You may be holding the keys to a strong, defensible patent.
Think Like a Strategist, Not Just an Inventor
This is where founders need to zoom out. Motivation to combine isn’t just a legal hurdle—it’s a competitive advantage when handled strategically.
You’re not just protecting code or hardware. You’re protecting how your team solved a problem in a way no one else had.
The motivation question gives you a chance to claim that territory.
Here’s the key shift: Stop thinking about your invention as a product and start framing it as a decision.
Why did you combine these elements? What was the insight? What were others doing—and why wasn’t it working?
This reframing allows you to position your innovation not just as novel, but as non-obvious in a real-world context.
You’re not just saying, “We built this.” You’re saying, “Others didn’t go this route—and here’s why that matters.”
That’s what makes a patent stick. That’s what builds value.
Use Product Development as Evidence
Founders often miss this: your product development process can become a powerful defense against a motivation-to-combine rejection.
Did your team explore other solutions and find them lacking?
Did you run into technical friction that others would’ve avoided?
Did your final solution come from a surprising direction that wasn’t common in your field?
Documenting these things doesn’t just help your team iterate—it also gives you credible evidence to show the examiner that there was no clear or obvious path to your invention.
That makes their job much harder. And yours easier.
So take a moment to look at your roadmap, your engineering notes, and even your internal discussions.
Those early-stage decisions can become the strategic storytelling edge that blocks a rejection—and wins you a patent.
Build a Narrative That Doesn’t Just Defend—It Differentiates
You don’t want to barely dodge a 103 rejection. You want to make it clear from the start that your idea wasn’t a blend of the past—it was a break from it.
That starts by writing your application with a mindset that goes beyond defense. It’s about differentiation.
Talk about what the field was doing before. Talk about the mindset or assumptions others held.
Talk about how your solution broke from those patterns.
Was everyone focused on performance when you focused on ease of use?
Were solutions bloated when yours was minimal?
Was there a prevailing belief that something wouldn’t work—and you proved it could?
These are gold. They make your patent more than just defensible. They make it memorable. And that’s powerful in a space where IP can be as valuable as your tech itself.
PowerPatent helps you do exactly this—translate your innovation journey into a strategic narrative, built for both speed and strength.
You don’t need to master legal arguments. You just need to be clear, and we’ll handle the rest.
See how the smartest startups are doing it
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Make “Motivation to Combine” Work For You
Here’s the real unlock: the concept of motivation to combine isn’t just something to defend against. You can also use it to make your future patents stronger.
When you’re thinking about new products or features, start asking: If someone combined A and B before, why didn’t they get to C? If they didn’t, that gap might be your edge.
That gap might be your next patent.
This thinking doesn’t just protect your innovation—it sharpens your innovation process.
And once you’ve spotted the non-obvious path, documenting it is simple.
With PowerPatent, you’ll have the tools to turn that insight into a strong, clear, and fast patent application—guided by real attorneys and powered by smart software.
If you’re serious about turning your ideas into real assets, there’s no better time to get started:
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
What Examiners Are Looking For
They’re Not Guessing—They’re Building a Legal Case
Many founders assume that patent examiners are just skimming applications, trying to check a box. That’s not how it works.
Every 103 rejection is an argument—one built piece by piece with real documents, logic, and legal backing.
Examiners don’t make these calls randomly. They’re required to support their rejection with very specific reasoning.
They must show that someone skilled in your field could and would have combined elements from past inventions in the exact way you did.
And they need to back it up with documents from before your filing date.
That means every 103 rejection is based on a hypothesis: that your invention is just the result of combining prior knowledge in a predictable way.
Your job is to show that the combination wasn’t predictable—and wasn’t suggested by the evidence they cite.
This is where smart founders gain the upper hand. If you know what the examiner is trying to do, you can reverse-engineer your application to make their job much harder.
Think Like the Examiner Before You File
The best time to beat a 103 rejection is before it even happens. That means thinking like an examiner before you file.
Start by imagining how someone could argue that your invention is just a combination of two or three known things.
Then look at your idea from their perspective. What would they pull from the past to try to recreate your invention?
If you can see the argument coming, you can block it upfront.
This doesn’t mean hiding the building blocks you used. It means framing them correctly. Explain how the path you took wasn’t predictable.
Show that the elements didn’t naturally fit together until you made them work. Prove that the result wasn’t expected.
This kind of positioning doesn’t just reduce the chance of rejection. It makes your patent stronger, more defensible, and more valuable.
PowerPatent helps you do this with a guided flow that spots weak points before you file.
Instead of reacting to rejections later, you’re avoiding them entirely with better storytelling from the start.
If you want to file smarter, this is the way:
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
The Examiner is Looking for a Thread to Pull
Every 103 rejection starts with a simple move: the examiner finds two or more pieces of prior art and tries to stitch them together with a logical thread.
The question they’re asking is not whether your exact invention existed before. It’s whether someone could have reasonably ended up where you did, using what was already out there.
So they look for overlap. A shared function. A similar structure. A matching use case.
And then they try to connect that to a known motivation—like improving efficiency, reducing size, or adapting a product to a new environment.
If they find that thread, they’ll use it to argue that your invention was just the next logical step.
Your job is to cut that thread.
That means showing that the combination wasn’t obvious—not because the parts didn’t exist, but because no one had a reason to use them together in that way.
Maybe the fields were too different. Maybe there was a known problem with that combo. Maybe the benefit wasn’t predictable.
When you make the disconnect between those prior pieces and your final invention clear, you weaken their entire case.
This is why your patent application should always show why your combination worked when others didn’t expect it to.
You’re not just defending novelty—you’re undermining the very motivation they’ll try to claim.
Want to be sure you’re not leaving any thread for them to pull? That’s exactly what PowerPatent’s smart tools and attorney oversight help you do.
Don’t wait for rejection. Block it before it lands:
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Examiners Look for Predictability—You Want to Show Surprise
At the core of every 103 analysis is one silent question: Was the result predictable?
Predictability is the foundation of the motivation-to-combine argument. If the outcome of combining two things is expected, then the combination might be considered obvious.
But if the result is surprising—even in a small way—that predictability breaks down. That’s your opening.
You can use this to your advantage by explaining how the combined elements of your invention produced something that wasn’t anticipated.
Maybe performance improved beyond expectations.
Maybe a known limitation disappeared. Maybe it solved a problem that had nothing to do with the original parts.
These kinds of unexpected results are powerful, because they show that the combination wasn’t just clever—it wasn’t foreseeable.
And that’s exactly what examiners are looking for. If they can’t show that your result was predictable, their rejection loses its legal teeth.
This is why founders should always include test results, user feedback, performance comparisons, or even early design failures in their applications.
Not to show how long it took to build—but to show that the result wasn’t obvious.
It’s not about how good your invention is. It’s about how non-obvious it was to get there.
PowerPatent helps surface and shape these unexpected insights into clear, strategic narratives—so you walk into the process not just prepared, but protected.
If you’re ready to get ahead of what the examiner is really looking for, now’s the time:
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
How the Examiner Builds Their Argument
It’s Not Personal—It’s Pattern-Based
Patent examiners are trained to identify patterns. They’re not out to block your idea because they dislike it or misunderstand it.
They’re working from a framework designed to test whether your invention meets the legal threshold of non-obviousness.
That means they’re looking for recognizable, repeatable structures that align with earlier inventions.
Examiners don’t have to prove your invention already exists.
They just have to show a logical chain that suggests someone could reasonably build your solution by combining known pieces.
It’s an exercise in assembly, not originality.
Understanding this is a strategic advantage.
If you know the examiner is trying to build a path from existing technologies to yours, your job is to make that path look impossible, impractical, or invisible before your filing date.
If the path didn’t exist, or was too obscure to follow, then your idea was not obvious. And that gives you leverage.
The Examiner’s Blueprint: Three Steps You Must Break
Every examiner has a playbook. It usually involves identifying a “primary reference” that covers most of your invention, then adding one or more “secondary references” to fill in the gaps.
The final piece is their rationale for combining them.
They have to show that there was a reason to do this combination at the time you filed—not just that it was possible. The reason is everything.
This is where most rejections fall apart. Because showing that two things existed is easy.
Showing a reason to merge them the way you did—that’s much harder. Especially if you’re strategic in how you present your invention.
One way to block their blueprint is by making clear that your specific combination solves a unique problem no one else was trying to solve.
That immediately raises the question: if no one was solving that problem, why would they combine these references?
This turns their logic back on itself and forces them to justify something they can’t prove easily.
Anticipate Their “Could Have” Versus “Would Have” Logic
Examiners often operate in a grey area between technical possibility and actual likelihood.
They may argue that your invention could have been made based on known technology. But that’s not enough under the law.
They must show that someone would have made it.
This distinction is subtle, but it’s where your defense lives.
The best applications close that gap before the examiner even opens it.
They address not only the novelty of the idea, but the thinking behind why it wasn’t obvious to pursue.
They clarify that while the parts may have existed, the motivation did not.
This is why vague or overly broad patent applications are risky.
They leave too much room for the examiner to assume that your solution was just sitting there, waiting to be discovered.
Instead, you want to be specific about what your invention achieves, how the parts work together in a new way, and why that integration wasn’t straightforward. This specificity is your moat.
PowerPatent gives you the tools to draw those distinctions clearly—before your filing is even submitted.
That means you’re not just reacting to the examiner’s argument, you’re actively weakening it before it begins.
Start building your IP moat now
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Neutralizing the “Obvious to Try” Trap
Examiners sometimes use a shortcut called “obvious to try.” It means they argue that combining known elements was a natural thing to experiment with.
But this only works if the field had a limited number of predictable solutions.
You can block this trap by showing that your solution wasn’t just one of many predictable options—it was unexpected or counterintuitive.
Maybe your approach went against industry norms. Maybe it solved a problem in a totally different way than others were attempting.
Maybe it used materials or logic from an unrelated field.
When you show that others weren’t even looking in your direction, the “obvious to try” logic falls apart.
Because what’s obvious in hindsight was not obvious in practice.
This is why documenting early design decisions and rejected prototypes is so valuable.
It gives you a paper trail that shows the path to your invention wasn’t obvious, even to your own team.
Smart founders keep this kind of strategic documentation—not for internal use, but to support their patent position when the time comes.
If you don’t have a strategy to manage this, PowerPatent makes it easy to capture and frame this information in a way that strengthens your application.
Don’t just document your product—document your edge
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Flip the Narrative: What Wasn’t Obvious About What You Did?
Here’s a tactic few people use but works like magic. Instead of only defending your idea as novel, go on offense. Ask: what would have stopped someone from combining these ideas before?
What were the risks? What was the industry avoiding? What did everyone think wouldn’t work?
Then show how your invention either overcame those barriers—or turned them into advantages.
This creates an entirely different narrative. One where you’re not just claiming to be new. You’re claiming to be bold. Strategic. Ahead of the curve.
Examiners can’t ignore this narrative if you anchor it in the real state of the art at the time. It undermines their ability to claim that your combin
ation was natural or predictable.
And it gives investors, acquirers, and competitors a strong reason to respect—and not replicate—your IP.
Ready to tell that story clearly, from day one?
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
How to Beat a 103 Rejection Using Motivation to Combine
You Don’t Need to Be a Lawyer—You Just Need to Be Clear
Here’s the good news. Beating a 103 rejection doesn’t require a law degree.
What it really takes is a clear explanation—one that shows why your invention wasn’t the obvious next step.
When examiners say your idea was “obvious,” they’re making an argument. That means you can argue back.
And the strongest arguments don’t come from legal jargon. They come from clear thinking.
You’ve got something powerful on your side: you actually built the thing.
You know what worked, what didn’t, and what other people tried before. That gives you insight the examiner doesn’t have.
So don’t freeze up when you see a rejection. Use it as a chance to clarify your story. That story is your weapon.
Start with the Problem You Solved
Every invention starts with a problem. It might be a user pain point. It might be a technical limitation.
It might be something no one realized was a problem until you solved it.
Start there. Make it crystal clear what wasn’t working in the old systems or tools. Explain why that problem mattered.
Then show how none of the existing solutions really worked. Maybe they were too slow. Or too bulky.
Or only worked under perfect conditions. Or cost too much. Or couldn’t scale.
By painting a clear picture of the problem, you make the “motivation to combine” argument harder to stick.
Because now, the examiner has to show that someone else not only saw this exact problem—but also had reason to combine the right tools to solve it exactly how you did.
That’s a much tougher bar.
Explain the Unexpected Leap
This is the moment where your invention comes into the spotlight.
What did you do that no one else was doing?
Did you borrow from a field no one thought was relevant?
Did you apply a technique in a way that felt backwards—but worked anyway? Did you cut out a step that everyone assumed was required?
These kinds of twists are what make an invention non-obvious.
You’re not just showing that your idea works. You’re showing that the path you took wasn’t the one everyone else was on.
That breaks the examiner’s logic. Because now, even if the pieces existed, the motivation to combine them the way you did becomes unclear—or totally missing.
Highlight the Surprise
Did your invention do something people didn’t expect?
Maybe you thought your new design would just be smaller—but it turned out to be more durable too.
Or maybe a software tweak made the system way more efficient than anyone predicted.
These surprises matter.
Why? Because if the result wasn’t predictable, the path to it wasn’t obvious. That’s one of the most powerful arguments you can make against a 103 rejection.
So don’t bury the unexpected stuff. Highlight it.
Make it part of your story. Because it shows your solution wasn’t a straight line—and no one else would’ve drawn it that way.
Want help turning your story into a clear, compelling argument that wins? That’s exactly what PowerPatent helps you do.
Our software brings your invention to life—and our expert team helps you respond to examiners with real precision.
Don’t wing it. Win it.
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
The Role of Secondary Considerations
You’ve probably never heard the phrase “secondary considerations” unless you’ve been deep in patent law. But here’s what it means, in simple terms:
When you’re facing a 103 rejection, you can bring in real-world evidence to show that your invention wasn’t obvious—even if the examiner tries to say it was.
This can include:
- Commercial success
- Copying by competitors
- Long-standing problems finally solved
- Praise from experts
- Industry adoption
These aren’t just nice extras. They’re evidence.
If your product suddenly took off where others failed, or if your competitors scrambled to copy it—that tells a story the examiner can’t ignore.
It shows your invention moved the needle. That means it wasn’t just a routine combo of old stuff. It was something more.
That’s what can break a rejection wide open.
Now, this doesn’t mean you need to be a Fortune 500 company. Even early traction, or beta testers raving about the results, can help.
It’s all about showing that your idea did something no one else managed to do before you.
PowerPatent helps you surface this kind of gold—then weave it into your application or response the right way.
So even if the examiner digs in, you’ve got more than opinions. You’ve got proof.
Ready to build a case that holds up?
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Using Motivation to Combine to Strengthen Your Patent Application From the Start
The Best Defense is a Smart Application
Here’s a truth that most founders don’t hear: many 103 rejections happen not because the invention is weak, but because the patent application didn’t tell the story clearly enough.
You can avoid most of the pain upfront by writing your application in a way that anticipates and blocks obviousness rejections—especially around motivation to combine.
How? By guiding the examiner’s thinking from the beginning.
Most applications just describe what the invention is.
But the strongest ones go further. They explain why it matters, how it solves a hard problem, and why others didn’t do it before.
When you include this thinking upfront, you shrink the room examiners have to argue against you. You pre-empt the rejection.
You don’t just defend your invention—you fortify it.
That’s exactly what we do at PowerPatent. Our system helps you highlight the “non-obvious” elements of your invention before the examiner ever asks.
That saves you time, money, and endless back-and-forth.
Want to see how this works in real life?
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Say the Quiet Parts Out Loud
Here’s something most engineers never do—but should: spell out what others didn’t think to do.
Don’t assume the examiner will see the difference between your solution and the old ways. Show it to them. Directly. Simply.
Write things like:
“No existing solution combined X and Y in this way.”
“Conventional approaches avoided this method due to [challenge], but the inventor discovered that…”
“This result was unexpected because…”
These aren’t just nice statements—they’re legal shields.
When you say these things directly in your application, you make it harder for the examiner to claim your idea was obvious.
Because now they have to find real proof that people were thinking along those same lines before. And usually, they can’t.
This is why writing your patent like a tech spec is not enough.
You need to write it like a strategic story—one that shows your invention wasn’t just clever, but not obvious.
We help you craft that story with precision. Every claim backed by logic. Every argument supported by evidence. Every detail aligned with how patent examiners think.
Don’t leave it to chance. Build a better case from day one:
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Clarify the Technical Hurdle You Solved
You already know this: great inventions solve real problems. But here’s the part most founders miss—those problems aren’t always obvious to other people.
What you saw as a blocker might not even be on the examiner’s radar. So explain it.
What was hard about combining those ideas?
Did it take clever engineering to make them work together?
Was there a compatibility issue that no one had solved?
Was there a risk everyone avoided?
These hurdles matter. When you show that others didn’t combine the ideas because of those roadblocks, you destroy the “motivation to combine” argument.
Suddenly it’s not, “anyone could have done this.”
It’s: “people didn’t even try—until you figured out how to make it work.”
That’s a winning story. One that turns your engineering work into strong legal protection.
PowerPatent helps you translate these insights into the right language—so the real value of your invention comes through loud and clear.
You built something no one else could. Now let’s protect it like it deserves:
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Build Your Case Like You’d Build a Product
Think about how you launch a new feature. You don’t just throw it into the world. You plan the messaging.
You understand your users. You stress-test every edge case.
Treat your patent strategy the same way.
Start with the core problem. Make it painfully clear. Show that other tools didn’t solve it.
Then walk the examiner through the thinking behind your solution—what you combined, why it was different, what made it work.
Don’t just describe what you built. Show why it wasn’t the obvious next step.
And just like with product feedback, track how the examiner responds. If they push back, refine your message.
Keep clarifying the motivation gap—not just the invention.
When you do this right, your application becomes more than a legal doc. It becomes a defense system that protects your IP from being torn down later.
That’s what PowerPatent was designed for. Fast, founder-friendly tools to help you get to a better patent—without the mess of old-school firms.
Want to skip the confusion and build IP that holds up?
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Wrapping It Up
“Obviousness” isn’t just a technical hurdle. It’s a judgment call based on whether someone else could have built what you built—and more importantly, why they would have.
That’s what makes motivation to combine such a powerful turning point in any patent journey. It’s not about whether your invention uses known parts. It’s about whether the path you took was clear, predictable, and expected—or whether you saw something others didn’t.
