Past court decisions on patent law, including those of the Supreme Court, have explained obviousness through the idea of how common sense can guide the skilled artisan through a limited number of known solutions.  From KSR:

When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.

Seems reasonable enough. Except innovation tends to be unpredictable and does not so easily follow this type of hindsight thinking. Modern research into creative thinking has actually found that the more constrained the situation, the more creative people become. Some research refers to this as “creative constraint,” meaning that the more options available, the less creative people are, and vice versa. Fast Company has an interesting article here. For anyone who has actually been an inventor, it is easy to see the intellectual draw of the creative constraint theory.

It is difficult to find anyone applying this research in the patent field. From a simple-minded perspective, it seems that this theory at least raises the question of the correctness of the idea that things become more obvious when there are limited choices. Since the courts, and the USPTO, should have just as much interest in being correct in their theories on inventiveness as they do in ensuring they issue valid patents, the theory of creative constraints deserves a look.

Maybe others know of someone researching this issue - if so please advise.