What does a "totality of facts" argument aim to demonstrate?

A "totality of facts" argument focuses on the comprehensive assessment of all elements and features of an invention in conjunction with prior art. It seeks to demonstrate that the combination of those elements results in a unique invention that is markedly different from anything that has been previously disclosed. This approach is crucial in patentability discussions, especially when evaluating novelty and non-obviousness. The essence of such an argument is to show that while individual features may exist in prior art, their specific combination yields a new, inventive concept that isn't merely an aggregation of its parts but rather a distinct advancement.

In this context, other options do not align with the intent of a "totality of facts" argument. While option A implies that the invention relies entirely on existing knowledge, it contradicts the idea of establishing something new. Option C suggests that the invention is derivative of prior art, which also fails to convey the uniqueness required for patentability. Finally, option D incorrectly generalizes the nature of patents by asserting that complexity is a barrier to granting patents, while the focus should be on the novelty and non-obviousness of the invention rather than merely classifying it as complicated.