Not associated with the USPTO, but my name is on multiple patents.
The problem is that examiners have no real way to determine what is "obvious". Every new field is a gold rush, and I've seen multiple fields slowed down dramatically by it. Worse yet, those rushing to new discoveries are usually not those rushing to file patents. This is most clearly where the patent system is destructive.
I would like to see a rule that it is on the issuer of the patent to demonstrate that not only does it seem novel, but their patent is on something that could have been done, and would have had a market, for the previous decade. To demonstrate non-obviousness not by someone's say-so, but by the fact that people failed to figure it out.
The problem is that examiners have no real way to determine what is "obvious". Every new field is a gold rush, and I've seen multiple fields slowed down dramatically by it. Worse yet, those rushing to new discoveries are usually not those rushing to file patents. This is most clearly where the patent system is destructive.
I would like to see a rule that it is on the issuer of the patent to demonstrate that not only does it seem novel, but their patent is on something that could have been done, and would have had a market, for the previous decade. To demonstrate non-obviousness not by someone's say-so, but by the fact that people failed to figure it out.