Remember, the Supreme Court just issued some kind of ruling where "obviousness" comes into play. It has something to do with building patents from combining other patents.
The problem with that theory, at least to me, is that both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray walked into the patent office only hours apart for the same patent, the telephone. I realize that the one important piece to the patent, the "speaker", was new, but I don't understand how to test for obviousness any more.
It is very possible that many of the patents within the Appeals Court system could be overturned simply on the "obviousness".