> But if that were the case, the patent would almost certainly be invalid; the claimed invention must be inventive, i.e. having come up with something that is n

> But if that were the case, the patent would almost certainly be invalid; the claimed invention must be inventive, i.e. having come up with something that is not obvious. You just proved that you don't know how patents work. I'm sorry, but that's the naked truth. Clean-room implementations are no protection from patents.