This ruling makes no sense to me. I'll use the term "Logical Progression".  Some could agure that a logical progression of their patent would automatically award them the next patent in a line of progression. I posted this early this morning in a reply to a post. I'm not sure who read it. Thought is worth repeating. Could some one tell me why the ruling would not strongly favor the existing patent holders. If a new patent app. is in any way simular to something already existing. In the example below, that I wrote about this morning, I could see that the only person that could be granted a patent on a automobile would be the one that invented the bicycle in the first place. The four wheel vehicle would be an obvious progression  of the trike. But what about the one who invented the wheel in the first place , does he have claim to all things ever invented that uses a round wheel in it or on it?

Say for instance that you invented the bicycle, and a year later they guy down the street invents the tricycle. The tricycle guy applies for a patent about a year after the bicycle guy is awarded the patent on the bicycle. To me it would be obvious that the logical progression of the bicycle is to add another wheel to keep it more stable for people who can't ride well. Would the patent office deny the trike , sighting prior art to the bicycle guy? Would the bicycle guy then be able to apply for the patent himself and be awarded it?

I believe we just got into a huge mess here with this decission.

Where is my thinking wrong here, I see another Supreme Court case comming on the issue.