Re Roy's post:
One of my favorites is U.S. patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light_Speed
Antenna" (Strom). Besides sending the signal at a speed faster than
light and penetrating known RF shielding devices, a side benefit is
that it can be used to accelerate plant growth. I've read many patents
which are as fundamentally flawed, but this one has the advantage of
being so obviously wacko that nearly anyone but the overly credulous
can see from it just how little a patent really means as an indication
of technical merit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
---

I am convinced that this application was intentionally filed to point
up the bogosity(?) of the system. It was the claim for improving
plant growth that convinced me.

In general, I agree with your contention that patents are granted
unless there's some clear problem (perpetual motion), with the idea
that they'll let the would-be infringer fight it out to invalidate it.

The PTO is full of good people, but grossly underfunded, and without
sufficient institutional gumption to try and fight the tide of patents
for the unpatentable and obvious.

Jim, W6RMK

"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
Dear Jim (W6RMK): I have just returned from a conference where two of
the
speakers were senior officials of the USPTO. Among other things, they
made
clear that a large effort is being made to reduce what the PTO calls
"errors." These measures include allowed applications being scrutinized
by
someone other than the examiner before being issued as a patent. While
the
backlog of applications increases, the fraction of examined applications
that end up being issued as patents has precipitously decreased in the
last
few years.

About 1200 new examiners are being hired each FY with a total of
somewhat over 5000 examiners. Obviously, the turnover is large with over
20% of the examiner corps being replaced each year.

In short, the USPTO has many of what they call "challenges," but they
are trying to manage the challenges. That includes implementing means for
reducing "errors."

Every time an "error" is patented, it seems to make it more difficult
to
secure a legitimate patent. Your contention that the error rate is large
is
not supported by facts. With a vigorous review process, in the last FY
only
3.5% of approved applications were deemed to be "errors" and did not pass
to
issue. I am confident that the number of errors that managed to slip by
is
small indeed.

All that said, the USPTO is considering having interested parties
comment by the internet during the prosecution of applications. This
might
start with applications in business-methods and computer related
applications. This scheme would allow knowledgeable persons in the art to
tell the PTO well in advance of allowance that the art in the application
is
old because of such and such. Other similar schemes are being considered.

We all realize that the Republic's balance of payments is kept from
being catastrophic because of the export of intellectual property.

The process needs improvement. It is being improved. Really bad
patents are becoming rare.

Warm regards, Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

wrote in message

I am convinced that this application was intentionally filed to point
up the bogosity(?) of the system. It was the claim for improving
plant growth that convinced me.

In general, I agree with your contention that patents are granted
unless there's some clear problem (perpetual motion), with the idea
that they'll let the would-be infringer fight it out to invalidate it.

The PTO is full of good people, but grossly underfunded, and without
sufficient institutional gumption to try and fight the tide of patents
for the unpatentable and obvious.

Jim, W6RMK




While the overall percentage of errors is quite small even 1% or .01% would
still be a lot.Certainly enough to realise that one can not validate the
worthiness of on ides on the basis that it is patented.

Dear Jim (W6RMK): I have just returned from a conference where two of the
speakers were senior officials of the USPTO. Among other things, they made
clear that a large effort is being made to reduce what the PTO calls
"errors." These measures include allowed applications being scrutinized by
someone other than the examiner before being issued as a patent. While the
backlog of applications increases, the fraction of examined applications
that end up being issued as patents has precipitously decreased in the last
few years.

About 1200 new examiners are being hired each FY with a total of
somewhat over 5000 examiners. Obviously, the turnover is large with over
20% of the examiner corps being replaced each year.

In short, the USPTO has many of what they call "challenges," but they
are trying to manage the challenges. That includes implementing means for
reducing "errors."

Every time an "error" is patented, it seems to make it more difficult to
secure a legitimate patent. Your contention that the error rate is large is
not supported by facts. With a vigorous review process, in the last FY only
3.5% of approved applications were deemed to be "errors" and did not pass to
issue. I am confident that the number of errors that managed to slip by is
small indeed.

All that said, the USPTO is considering having interested parties
comment by the internet during the prosecution of applications. This might
start with applications in business-methods and computer related
applications. This scheme would allow knowledgeable persons in the art to
tell the PTO well in advance of allowance that the art in the application is
old because of such and such. Other similar schemes are being considered.

We all realize that the Republic's balance of payments is kept from
being catastrophic because of the export of intellectual property.

The process needs improvement. It is being improved. Really bad
patents are becoming rare.

Warm regards, Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

wrote in message

I am convinced that this application was intentionally filed to point
up the bogosity(?) of the system. It was the claim for improving
plant growth that convinced me.

In general, I agree with your contention that patents are granted
unless there's some clear problem (perpetual motion), with the idea
that they'll let the would-be infringer fight it out to invalidate it.

The PTO is full of good people, but grossly underfunded, and without
sufficient institutional gumption to try and fight the tide of patents
for the unpatentable and obvious.

Jim, W6RMK

On 19 Mar, 19:18, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in messagenews:9_GdnbWhyMebpWLYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@brigh t.net...





Dear Jim (W6RMK): I have just returned from a conference where two of
the
speakers were senior officials of the USPTO. Among other things, they
made
clear that a large effort is being made to reduce what the PTO calls
"errors." These measures include allowed applications being scrutinized
by
someone other than the examiner before being issued as a patent. While
the
backlog of applications increases, the fraction of examined applications
that end up being issued as patents has precipitously decreased in the
last
few years.

About 1200 new examiners are being hired each FY with a total of
somewhat over 5000 examiners. Obviously, the turnover is large with over
20% of the examiner corps being replaced each year.

In short, the USPTO has many of what they call "challenges," but they
are trying to manage the challenges. That includes implementing means for
reducing "errors."

Every time an "error" is patented, it seems to make it more difficult
to
secure a legitimate patent. Your contention that the error rate is large
is
not supported by facts. With a vigorous review process, in the last FY
only
3.5% of approved applications were deemed to be "errors" and did not pass
to
issue. I am confident that the number of errors that managed to slip by
is
small indeed.

All that said, the USPTO is considering having interested parties
comment by the internet during the prosecution of applications. This
might
start with applications in business-methods and computer related
applications. This scheme would allow knowledgeable persons in the art to
tell the PTO well in advance of allowance that the art in the application
is
old because of such and such. Other similar schemes are being considered.

We all realize that the Republic's balance of payments is kept from
being catastrophic because of the export of intellectual property.

The process needs improvement. It is being improved. Really bad
patents are becoming rare.

Warm regards, Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

wrote in message

I am convinced that this application was intentionally filed to point
up the bogosity(?) of the system. It was the claim for improving
plant growth that convinced me.

In general, I agree with your contention that patents are granted
unless there's some clear problem (perpetual motion), with the idea
that they'll let the would-be infringer fight it out to invalidate it.

The PTO is full of good people, but grossly underfunded, and without
sufficient institutional gumption to try and fight the tide of patents
for the unpatentable and obvious.

Jim, W6RMK

While the overall percentage of errors is quite small even 1% or .01% would
still be a lot.Certainly enough to realise that one can not validate the
worthiness of on ides on the basis that it is patented.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jimmie, the patent office is not interested in worthiness, it is
interested in providing a service and protection in exchange
for findings to be printed for the advance of science. Obviously
they are not going to waste time on perpetual motion and at the same
time they would not invalidate an invention of earmuffs as being
trivial since 1/2 million were sold the first year of production. Now
that patent offices in different countries have joined together in a
loose sort of way changes have been made with respect to dormant
patents with claims of an idea without
acknoweledgment as to how the idea would come to fruition. Also if a
claim was sufficiently fague the patent holder has to show that he was
taking advantage of his claim i.e. manufacturing
facilities. The PTO have now documented all patents on a computor such
that prominent adjectives and processes in a new request can be
compared to prior patents with the same words quite easily which
allows the PTO to ask for more intimate detailsfrom the applicant as
to why his should be allowednow knowing of existing patents.So Jimmie
to summarize the PTO is offering protection as a service such that the
divuljence of the application will further the advance of science, so
yes some patents will be considered useless in the eyes of some yet in
the eyes of an entranapour it can be the source of riches. In terms of
true science advances are made in little steps and not by a
significant myrical thus it is important that each step
be publicised until the ultimate is reached on behalf of the nation.
The patent office by the way is a cash cow in that it generates more
revenue that it costs to operate i.e a patent cost money by all
aplicants which is why Crystal city is so influent with high cost
buildings but at the same time the Government has control of the PTO
and thus removes cash returns each year from the PTO for cancelling
other government losses.
Art

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:18:00 -0400, Jimmie D wrote:
"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
Dear Jim (W6RMK): I have just returned from a conference where two of the
speakers were senior officials of the USPTO. Among other things, they made
clear that a large effort is being made to reduce what the PTO calls
"errors." These measures include allowed applications being scrutinized by
someone other than the examiner before being issued as a patent. While the
backlog of applications increases, the fraction of examined applications
that end up being issued as patents has precipitously decreased in the last
few years.

About 1200 new examiners are being hired each FY with a total of
somewhat over 5000 examiners. Obviously, the turnover is large with over
20% of the examiner corps being replaced each year.

In short, the USPTO has many of what they call "challenges," but they
are trying to manage the challenges. That includes implementing means for
reducing "errors."

Every time an "error" is patented, it seems to make it more difficult to
secure a legitimate patent. Your contention that the error rate is large is
not supported by facts. With a vigorous review process, in the last FY only
3.5% of approved applications were deemed to be "errors" and did not pass to
issue. I am confident that the number of errors that managed to slip by
is small indeed.

All that said, the USPTO is considering having interested parties
comment by the internet during the prosecution of applications. This
might
start with applications in business-methods and computer related
applications. This scheme would allow knowledgeable persons in the art to
tell the PTO well in advance of allowance that the art in the application is
old because of such and such. Other similar schemes are being considered.

We all realize that the Republic's balance of payments is kept from
being catastrophic because of the export of intellectual property.

The process needs improvement. It is being improved. Really bad
patents are becoming rare.

jimlux wrote in message

I am convinced that this application was intentionally filed to point
up the bogosity(?) of the system. It was the claim for improving
plant growth that convinced me.

In general, I agree with your contention that patents are granted
unless there's some clear problem (perpetual motion), with the idea
that they'll let the would-be infringer fight it out to invalidate it.

The PTO is full of good people, but grossly underfunded, and without
sufficient institutional gumption to try and fight the tide of patents
for the unpatentable and obvious.

While the overall percentage of errors is quite small even 1% or .01% would
still be a lot.Certainly enough to realise that one can not validate the
worthiness of on ides on the basis that it is patented.

Especially if that one idea does not pass The Straight Face Test.

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** Killfiling google posts: http://jonz.net/ng.htm