Often the patentability of a thing lies in the technical details that accomplishes the cool function.
Hmm. Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Except for my failure to use high falutin' language, your quote doesn't seem materially different than:
Sometimes the non-obviousness of a thing is in how it gets done rather than what it is.
When I wrote my post, I thought I was agreeing with your point in general but adding my own spin to it.
Now that I re-read yours, though, I'm not sure. Perhaps I disagree and think the opposite of what you said.
You said what makes it non-obvious is "how it gets done." If "how it gets done" means "result" then I disagree, since my point was the result was often obvious but the details of the structure/function that produced the result might well be non-obvious.
Thus, I might disagree on your second part too. You said "what it is" is often obvious. But if "what it is" means structure/function, then I say the opposite: details of structure/function are often what makes it non
Caveat: my comments are limited to electronics/computers/software and general mechanical. I haven't a clue what makes something obvious or not in the bio or chem context.