PTO Requests Working Model of Warp Drive 277
aborchers writes "According to Patently-O: Patent Law Blog, the PTO has requested a working model of a Warp Drive for which a patent was recently applied. From the article, "Among other rejections, the Examiner has asserted a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility -- finding that the invention is inoperable." At least one examiner is paying attention!"
Reading the patent.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Too bad... (Score:3, Informative)
Wrongo, legal fanboi. They don't know jack shit about "electrical arts", or else they'd have a real job actually building something instead of shuffling papers in a government cubicle.
If they had even the slightest bit of talent, they would be embarrassed to categorize the most trivial of ideas to be "non-obvious".
And they DEFINITELY understand the patent system better than idiots like parent.
No, they can't see the forest for the trees. All they know about is masturbatory legal minutia. For example, they can't see how software patents are threatening to destroy innovation in the software industry, because they're not actually trying to make a productive living developing software. They just get paid to plant landmines all over the industry landscape; they don't give a shit about who ends up getting hurt or who has to clean them up. All they know is that their bosses allocate them a couple of hours to plant each mine, and their organization is rewarded based on how many mines get planted.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I like the part in the technical example (Score:2, Informative)
Google kindly provided 299 792 458 m / s as the speed of light which means to me that the molecules of the sphere are already traveling faster than light.
4.7 million is more than 299 million?
Stark contrast.... (Score:3, Informative)
The difference? I can't really determine the exact reasons, not being privy to the cirumstances surrounding the prosecution of each application, but one fact is that each was examined by a different examiner. I can speculate on the disparity of treatment, however. It is another fallout from PTO management's 30+ years of emphasis on meeting production and timeliness goals over substantive quality aspects of examination, quality meaning finding and applying relevant prior art and passing judgement on issues such as operability (I don't include aspects such as including software and business methods as patentable subject matter or creating a high standard of proof to support obviousness rejections, since these have been imposed externally by the courts).
The PTO's response to issues of quality has been to establish an entire subbeaurocrocy dedicated to "Quality Review", which has all the pitfalls of centralizing such essential values outside of the main operation. The main failure is how one expects a small core of people, no matter how expert they are in the examination process, to possess the same depth of knowledge as even a mediocre examiner in a give art. PTO management then compounds this with a punitive aspect; if QR "kicks back" an application the examiner will get charged with an error, yet the QR reviewer doesn't have the same kind of production pressure as the working examiner to grind out cases; telling someone "you should have spent more time searching this case" isn't particularly helpful if it doesn't explain how one chooses the other applications from which this time should have been taken.
The negative publicity concerning examination quality has, finally, reached the attention of PTO's upper level management, but, it is an open question if they will recognize that just heaping more "review" on the process will not actually result in an improvment, but that a fundamental return to the ethic of a genuine quality examination is the way to go.
Re:Dumb question (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dumb question (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wont they be suprised... (Score:5, Informative)