IANAPA (I Am Not A Patent Agent) and I disagree. It's a slippery slope to allow software but argue that "most" is too obvious to be patentable.
Not only is it a slippery slope, but it's one we've already slid down. The reason patent attorneys like requiring obviousness and prior art to be used is they've already pretty much killed those two. Any slight difference between the patent claim (or even the wording of the claim) and the prior art is enough to make it "novel" in the eyes of the patent office. And "obviousness" always runs up agains the idea that "if it was so obvious, why hasn't it been done before?"
Of course, when it comes to proving infringement, all those slight differences which make the patent different from the prior art don't matter; they just wave the Doctrine of Equivalents around and your device is infringing as long as it's "close enough".