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 to become obviously then next logical progression of what they already have.

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.