good article on how obvious it is that the obviousness test doesn't work for patents.
There are quite a lot of good comments too, I especially like some laywers lobbying for software patents.
Just like the EPO, the USPTO has turned to old patents in order to establish un obviousness. The real clue is likely not there, its in the tacit knowledge of persons skilled in the art, just as the law states. Just because its new doesn't mean its not obvious as Michael says.
Thimothy B Lee at the Cato Institute writes a good introduction to software patents in context of the upcoming Supreme Court decision in the Bilski case. The article is filled with good references to research and court decisions.
I'll get back soon. I just recently had a son.