[betterunix2]

It is not true that anyone knowledgeable in a field finds everything in that field straightforward. For example, Schoof's algorithm for counting points on elliptic curves was so non-obvious to relevant experts that he struggled to get his paper through peer review. Diffie also struggled to get his ideas about public-key cryptography published because experts in relevant fields did not understand how such an idea could even make sense. Another example is Gentry's original FHE construction, which was not at all obvious even to experts in lattice theory or any other relevant field of cryptography or math. It pains me to say this, but Bitcoin is also an example; check out the response on the cryptography mailing list, where several prominent experts in the field were confused by the concept of electronic payments that do not require any bank to issue and redeem the money.

Those are just what I know off the top of my head from my own field. While there is plenty of incremental research in any field and plenty of situations where a motivated expert would have arrived at the same basic concept, it is not outlandishly uncommon for a truly novel, non-obvious idea to be presented. The problem for patent examiners is that they are not experts and the pace of software innovation leaves them baffled by the applications they are examining; there are also too few patent examiners to handle the volume of applications that are submitted.

One way to address the problem is to just abolish software patents entirely. Software was never meant to be patentable, at least not if you recognize software as a form of applied math (happy to argue this one all day long) and accept the idea that math is not (or should not be) patentable.