Hacker News Reader

It is not nonsense. I myself have received two patents (out of five total) using exactly this method. One of these patents is for a device that sends information faster than light (US Patent 7126691), so it plainly should never have issued. (I prosecuted this patent specifically to test the theory that one could patent anything using this method.)

View on HN

According to PAIR, your patent was allowed after you responded to the first non-final office action. So no you did not use the method set out in the article of wearing down the examiner by continually filing continuations to get a yes.

Filing official actions is not the only way to wear down an examiner's resolve. And does it really invalidate my point that it only took me two iterations instead of N to obtain a patent on a device that violates the laws of physics?

Does it really matter which method of resending the same patent was used to get something invalid granted?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com