The idea behind patents is protecting the innovator. How does patent law protect anyone when it's trivial to argue a patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place (because it's not novel, or it's just math, blah blah)? You could say that about all patents ever filled.
It defeats the whole purpose behind patents. Whoever has the biggest patent pool and deepest pocket wins, not the little guy on the sweatshop. The only people to benefit from patents are lawyers.
Be careful. The idea behind patents and IP law in general isn't protecting the innovator. It's incentivizing the innovator to advance society through new ideas. The subtle difference is that, when society no longer benefits from protecting the "innovator", that person shouldn't get protection from IP law.
Unfortunately, IP law today is a perversion of this original principle.
I am not "blaming" anything on patent examiners. I am saying that they exist for their ability to interpret and decide. Were patent law black and white as you suggest, they would have no purpose.
Is that not the job of patent examiners?