[ScottBurson]

While I agree that there is a failure to understand contemporary technology, I also think the incentives given patent examiners are misaligned. They're rewarded for applications processed; they're not graded on the number of bad patents they reject.

A patent is a deal we, the people of the US, make with an inventor: add significantly to the sum total of our technical knowledge, and in exchange, we'll give you a time-limited monopoly on the technique you invented. The problem is that there isn't anyone unambiguously charged with making sure this is a good deal for us: that the knowledge we're getting is worth the price we're paying. It's technically the PTO's responsibility, and they do make some effort, but the incentives given patent examiners don't encourage them to be hard-nosed about it.

Currently, I don't think patents about to be granted are reviewed by the examiners' supervisors or anything like that. Seems to me there should be an internal committee that reviews every patent about to be granted by junior examiners, and an occasional one of those about to be granted by senior examiners, to verify its quality. Repeatedly approving applications that then get rejected by this committee should slow an examiner's promotion progress.

[jhdevos]

But right now, there isn't even a way to get a patent revoked in a court because of obviousness or triviality. Prior art is basically the only way to attack a patent.

It's the entire system that is built around the assumption that 'obviousness' is too difficult to measure objectively, and that protection is vastly more important than anything else, so we should always err on the side of protection when laying the boundary of what should be patentable and what not. In other words, better to have 1000 bad patents than running the risk of having 1 idea that should be patentable being rejected by accident.

No thought is given to the enormous damage this does to our industry.

[chii]

i suppose obviousness could be 'tested' for if the end result of the patent can be deduced by only looking at the end result and not reading any of the patent filing.

[ScottBurson]

Yes, I've had this thought too. Have a panel of engineers who get to see a description of the problem the invention supposedly solves, but get no information about how it solves it. If any of them come up with the same idea within a couple of days, it was obvious.