> So you seem to be saying that having a system where examiners approve patents they don't understand is preferred. Not so. I'm not defending the current syste

> So you seem to be saying that having a system where examiners approve patents they don't understand is preferred. Not so. I'm not defending the current system, just trying to demonstrate that your suggestion isn't feasible. > There are not 500 examiners. There are more than 6,000. Citation? --- Edit: found the data on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office#Structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Tradem...