As much as I dislike how the patent system can stifle innovation, I'd like to point out that the fact that this step seemed obvious as you were reading the arti

As much as I dislike how the patent system can stifle innovation, I'd like to point out that the fact that this step seemed obvious as you were reading the article is not, in itself, evidence that that step is inherently obvious. When writing academic papers that involve some new insight (in my field, it's computer graphics), a recommended way of writing the paper is such that, by virtue of how you describe the problem and the current shortcomings of the state of the art, the reader should almost be able to guess what your solution is by the time you actually reveal your own insight. If a description of a new method is well-written, then by the end it may feel like an obvious thing to the reader. So, sentences like: > Grover, Oskui, and their coworkers think that the reason stereolithography proved more toxic was that the 3D printed parts were leaching leftover building blocks that didn’t fully cure. might be a description that hides additional background work.