The Sprague-Dawley rats used in this study are notoriously prone to cancer. If you touch one with your hands it will get fingerprint shaped skin cancers. They have apparently have had all their DNA repair functions eliminated. They are used in toxicology because they are supersensitive to cancer, but the results are often dubious at best. I doubt that any study done with these animals can be trusted
The problem lies with a understaffed patent office and a badly designed patent law. An application is received, the examiner chooses a few key words, and does a patent search. He finds a few references, usually irrelevant and denies the patent. You explain why the references are irrelevant and the patent is either allowed or more objections are raised. The law requires the filer to disclose the prior art, but they often do not. The problem is that, while the examiners have a technical background, it is often not in the same field. The examiner for this patent could have been a chemical engineer. They are also rated on the volume of their work, not the quality, which does not help.
The solution, other than an adequate patent office, is to allow third parties to file objections to published patent applications. While this is subject to abuse, it would allow the raising of undisclosed prior art. Under the current law, the only option is to infringe and wait to be sued. Since the courts are even less technically sound, this is a risky thing to do. Hence the existence of patent trolls.
Slashdot Mirror
The Sprague-Dawley rats used in this study are notoriously prone to cancer. If you touch one with your hands it will get fingerprint shaped skin cancers. They have apparently have had all their DNA repair functions eliminated. They are used in toxicology because they are supersensitive to cancer, but the results are often dubious at best. I doubt that any study done with these animals can be trusted
The problem lies with a understaffed patent office and a badly designed patent law. An application is received, the examiner chooses a few key words, and does a patent search. He finds a few references, usually irrelevant and denies the patent. You explain why the references are irrelevant and the patent is either allowed or more objections are raised. The law requires the filer to disclose the prior art, but they often do not. The problem is that, while the examiners have a technical background, it is often not in the same field. The examiner for this patent could have been a chemical engineer. They are also rated on the volume of their work, not the quality, which does not help. The solution, other than an adequate patent office, is to allow third parties to file objections to published patent applications. While this is subject to abuse, it would allow the raising of undisclosed prior art. Under the current law, the only option is to infringe and wait to be sued. Since the courts are even less technically sound, this is a risky thing to do. Hence the existence of patent trolls.