I think Occam's Razor says a good lawyer convinced the patent office to make a bad decision. Could be wrong, but this is easily explained by incompetence.
What's the issue with this patent? It is a parallel construction of what was observed without the prior observation being specific enough for prior art.
And if there was to be coercion or convincing, the US Navy Secretary would be good enough you'd think?
And if there was to be coercion or convincing, the US Navy Secretary would be good enough you'd think?