4 ms·

It's not irrelevant. It's not the examiner's job to figure out if your invention works (although if it clearly doesn't, they might notice). It's his job to find

It's not irrelevant. It's not the examiner's job to figure out if your invention works (although if it clearly doesn't, they might notice). It's his job to find out if it's new and non-obvious relative to the prior art. Yes, you can hide the ball from the examiner. But if your claim is so lengthy that it'll never be infringed (not to say yours is quite that bad) then what's the harm in allowing it to issue?

lisper 11y ago
> It's not the examiner's job to figure out if your invention works Yes, it is: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html#d0e198682 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html#d0e1986... See section II "WHOLLY INOPERATIVE INVENTIONS; “INCREDIBLE” UTILITY" > Yes, you can hide the ball from the examiner. My ball was not very well hidden. If my invention worked it would let you communicate faster than the speed of light. I would expect any competent patent examiner to be familiar with the basic laws of physics.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  Some examiners are easier to hide the ball from than others. But if your claim can never be infringed under the laws of physics, who cares if you have that claim issued in a patent?
  - lisper 11y ago
    I care, because it is indicative of the lack of care that the PTO takes when making these decisions. I have four other patents which, in retrospect, also should not have been issued, and God only knows how many bogus patents have been issued to other people. Even if 99% of them are harmless that doesn't undo the real damage done by the rest.
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      In a perfect world, there would be enough funding for examiners to spent a month examining every application that comes in. In the real world, I worry a lot more about overbroad claims being issued than silly, but extremely narrow claims being issued.
      - lisper 11y ago
        I completely agree. I'm not holding up my patent as an example of the problem, merely as a data point to support my claim that getting a patent that does not meet statutory requirements (of utility and enablement in my case) is easy.

lisper 11y ago

> It's not the examiner's job to figure out if your invention works Yes, it is: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html#d0e198682 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html#d0e1986... See section II "WHOLLY INOPERATIVE INVENTIONS; “INCREDIBLE” UTILITY" > Yes, you can hide the ball from the examiner. My ball was not very well hidden. If my invention worked it would let you communicate faster than the speed of light. I would expect any competent patent examiner to be familiar with the basic laws of physics.

monochromatic 11y ago
Some examiners are easier to hide the ball from than others. But if your claim can never be infringed under the laws of physics, who cares if you have that claim issued in a patent?
- lisper 11y ago
  I care, because it is indicative of the lack of care that the PTO takes when making these decisions. I have four other patents which, in retrospect, also should not have been issued, and God only knows how many bogus patents have been issued to other people. Even if 99% of them are harmless that doesn't undo the real damage done by the rest.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    In a perfect world, there would be enough funding for examiners to spent a month examining every application that comes in. In the real world, I worry a lot more about overbroad claims being issued than silly, but extremely narrow claims being issued.
    - lisper 11y ago
      I completely agree. I'm not holding up my patent as an example of the problem, merely as a data point to support my claim that getting a patent that does not meet statutory requirements (of utility and enablement in my case) is easy.