According to the FCJ, when it comes to the question of whether a particular solution was obvious to the skilled person, it is irrelevant whether a different solution was more obvious. In the present case, it was decisive that two options were available for the skilled person, both of which were suitable for the purpose defined in the prior art. This was sufficient motivation for the skilled person to at least also consider the claimed solution.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.