Well, that's partly my point. It's obvious to just about everyone else, including those who submitted the application, so no one else is actually going to pate

Well, that's partly my point. It'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're building of a patent portfolio for defensive purposes it's all speculative and secretive during the phase when you're searching for things to patent. So they actually haven't "won" anything. The "won" and "awarded" 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's nothing worthy in obviousness. 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 "awarded" a patent for "winning" the task of gaming the patent system. These terms attribute meaning to a meaningless process.