Well, that&#x27;s partly my point.  It&#x27;s obvious to just about everyone else, including those who submitted the application, so no one else is actually going to patent this.  Because no one is going to submit a patent application, especially if you&#x27;re building of a patent portfolio for defensive purposes it&#x27;s all speculative and secretive during the phase when you&#x27;re searching for things to patent.<p>So they actually haven&#x27;t &quot;won&quot; anything.  The &quot;won&quot; and &quot;awarded&quot; terminology, at least in the vernacular and the way these terms are exploited for talking about obtaining patents, implies some kind of objective assessment of worthiness.  There&#x27;s nothing worthy in obviousness.<p>The test of obviousness is set by the patent examiners, which is not a high bar to reach.  The reasons patent examiners are not able to meaningful (dis)qualify patent applications on obviousness is frequently discussed (incentives that encourage issuing rather than rejecting; overwork at the patent office; unqualified, not versed in the art, of the area being examined).  So in effect, the patent application is &quot;awarded&quot; a patent for &quot;winning&quot; the task of gaming the patent system.  These terms attribute meaning to a meaningless process.