Economics of 'Obvious'

According to a New York Times article, the meaning of ‘obvious’ has caused disagreement in the Supreme Court. A patent is defined by “an invention the must be novel, useful and, not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field.” KSR International has a patent for an adjustable gas pedal in vehicles with electronic engine controls claims. The rival company, Teleflex Inc., considers “the combination of the two elements was obvious.”
A complex process of jury trials, litigations, and expenses result from this struggle of what is considered an obvious invention. I wonder if the economic principle of self-interest comes into play. Is Teleflex jealous that they were unable to come up with such an “obvious” invention? In hindsight, it may seem simple, but doesn’t that thought apply to patents for the bumper dumper? What do you think? Is it that this battle of “obvious” is a scapegoat for the real reasons these cases are being brought to the Supreme Court?