According to Roget’s thesaurus:

“Main Entry: creative
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: imaginative
Synonyms: artistic, clever, cool*, demiurgic, deviceful, fertile, formative, gifted, hep, hip*, ingenious, innovational, innovative, innovatory, inspired, inventive, original, originative, productive, prolific, stimulating, visionary, way out*
Antonyms: mindless, stale, uncreative, unimaginative, uninspired, unoriginal, untalented
Source: Roget’s New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang”

And:

“The ordinary and customary meaning “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.”

So ordinary creative is a synonym for ordinary inventiveness and ordinary innovation. So one of average skill is defined by KSR as an ordinary inventor. The thesaurus defines ordinary as:

” Roget’s New Millennium™ Thesaurus – Cite This Source – Share This
Main Entry: ordinary
Part of Speech: adjective 1
Definition: common
Synonyms: accustomed, customary, established, everyday, familiar, frequent, general, habitual, humdrum*, natural, normal, popular, prevailing, public, quotidian, regular, routine, settled, standard, stock, traditional, typical, usual, wonted
Antonyms: abnormal
Source: Roget’s New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico”

So a normal, typical, traditional inventor is now precluded from inventing something. Or to put it another way, if a typical inventor would have made an invention without undue experimentation then that invention is obvious. However an inventor is surely defined as one who has a statutary right to a patent. If not then using the word invention in a patent would itself raise questions of being made by an ordinary inventor and thus being obvious.

So that only leaves an abnormal or atypical inventor, presumably on a normal curve so many standard deviations from the average. Say for example that atypical here means the top 10% of inventors as sufficiently better than the average inventor. So that means that 90% of all patents must logically be invalid, because they must have been conceived by an ordinary innovator.

Even then working out the atypical top 10% of patents would be impossible. So isn’t this KSR decision logically incorrect?

This is hot news:

On October 23 USPTO is issuing a patent that is so poor in Hydrology that has a crass hydrological mistake in the first figure hurting common knowledge:

US 7,285,255 / pat application 10/316,513

I have two Patent Attorneys which are partners and own 45% of IP of my patents. They abandoned me withdrawing their representation after I started sending hundreds of IDS (Information Disclosure Statement) as soon as I realized a huge gap in the patenting system affecting patent attorneys having no background in Hydrology. I figured out they all might be Mechanical Engineers that learned something about Mechanic of Fluids very shallow compared to Hydrogeology/Soil Physics.

I predict that there is a gap of around 100,000 new patents in Hydrology because of lay people in the patenting affairs.

Well, my conceptions comes from Physiology learning how nature developed Phloem and Xylem to take fluids out of tubes, then I am proposing a change to capillarity to allow an advanced porosity.

Plant Physiology + Soil Physics/Hydrogeology

Just keep in mind that Lawyers are not trained in science, not even Justices.