I swear you guys are intentionally missing my point with the Occulus example. It wasn't an example of something that should be patented, it was an example of ho

I swear you guys are intentionally missing my point with the Occulus example. It wasn't an example of something that should be patented, it was an example of how things can seem obvious after it has been done. No one cared about VR 2 years ago, precisely because it had already been tried and failed numerous times before. That was a central part of my argument. Now that Occulus has proven VR ready for prime time, everyone claims they have a competing headset on par or better than the Rift. Some would use this as evidence that VR tech is "obvious" (again this is simply an analogy, nitpicking on the particulars is the wrong way to address this argument). My point is that this is not evidence for obviousness when your vantage point is after it has been shown it can be done. In fact it will only bias your judgment.