"not only had this patent passed muster as being non-obvious with the USPTO on its original filing but it had also been found to have been non-obvious on two se

"not only had this patent passed muster as being non-obvious with the USPTO on its original filing but it had also been found to have been non-obvious on two separate patent re-examinations before that same body and by a string of U.S. district court judges before whom the issue had arisen." As far as "original filing" that of course doesn't mean much considering the things that get through. But serious question here. When you say "had also been found to have been non-obvious on two separate patent re-examinations" doesn't that also speak to the skill of the attorneys involved in the case? I know of a trademark that we weren't able to get that a competitor that was much larger was able to get (that was a similar generic word). I put the loss to the skill of the attorney that I used falling short in his arguments.