109 replies to this topic

[Mind]

The latest podcast with Kelsey Moody, CEO of Ichor is now available: http://www.longecity...utics/?p=833514

[sensei]

Podcast Schmodcast

 

I want to see the data regarding their AML study

 

and data from their poorly designed non-representative ATTEMPT at replicating Baati

 

with ... wait for it

 

NOT MALE WISTAR RATS

 

rather -- inbred and cancer prone C57/BL6 BALB c (BALB 1) mice

 

[hav]

Just gave the latest podcast a listen and it was quite interesting and disappointing at the same time.

 

First half of it had to do with Macular Degeneration work Ichor is doing, mostly about enzymes related to cholesterol metabolism that effects vision health and links between cholesterol metabolic disorders and propensity to MD with passing mention of the AREDS formulation.

 

c60 discussion started around 16:50 (about halfway).  They're apparently not that interested in dissolving it in natural oils due to poor applicability to quality control and consistency called for in pharmaceuticals.  Said he prefers something more clearly chemically defined.  I imagine that would include Ethyl Oleate which is commonly used in pharmaceuticals but he mentioned nothing specific.  Also mentioned that for specific research that he would not prefer investigation an effect like life-span extension, preferring short term effects to long term ones.  He hinted they were doing some sort of study but doesn't expect anything to report till sometime in 2018.  When asked it he knew of anyone replicating the Baati study, he said he did not. Which is quite different from what Dr. Moussa said in his Anthony Lora video interview... probably because as a Baati co-author, Dr. Moussa would be more likely to be contacted by prospective researchers.   However, KMoody did say that c60 stability issues were worthy of more study by Ichor.

 

One big point KMoody stressed was that it is his belief that c60evoo is not a dietary supplement as defined by the FDA because it did not exist in the food supply prior to 1968.  Because it was not 1st synthesized until 1985 and before that existed only in chimney soot which never enters the food supply.  

 

He also mentioned feeling the social responsible to convey information about the potential lethal toxicity of c60 because of its high degree of instability when exposed to light in the presence of oxygen.  But gave no indication of any willingness to elaborate on that.

 

Near the end of the podcast KMoody talked about and interesting sounding protein synthesis process Ichor has developed to make raw P53 proteins for their automated assays. 

 

Only disappointing to me because I consider incomplete, vague, and ambiguous warnings of danger and death to have the inherent capacity to be overstated and misapplied, and thus to to mislead, and cannot help but wonder if that is the intent.  But otherwise very interesting and recommend listening to it yourself.

 

Howard

 

[lakesurfer]

I was hoping they studied the effect C60 EVOO had on macular degeneration. If they don't use EVOO we can't learn much for the people who make their own. My 86 yr. old Father in law was losing brain function and has macular degeneration. I started him on C60 EVOO  5ml/day. I am hoping there is a reversal in both conditions with the clearing of free radicals. I have a cataract starting (2yrs) in my left eye. I hope to fix that also.

[sensei]

Publish the data Ichor

[Mind]

I was hoping they studied the effect C60 EVOO had on macular degeneration. If they don't use EVOO we can't learn much for the people who make their own. My 86 yr. old Father in law was losing brain function and has macular degeneration. I started him on C60 EVOO  5ml/day. I am hoping there is a reversal in both conditions with the clearing of free radicals. I have a cataract starting (2yrs) in my left eye. I hope to fix that also.

 

 I hope everything goes well. Be sure to update everyone on the results. Not in this thread though. The "C60 anecdotal reports" thread would be better.

[sensei]

"So, you conduct research to create drugs to bring to market yourself while also making or experimenting with drugs for other pharmaceutical companies.

Right. Once you have the infrastructure in place, which we do, you can really scale that and take on lots of diverse projects."

http://www.ichorther...-can-teach-you/

 

Anyone can make C60 for themselves -- and even if a patent was granted -- you can STILL make a patented item for yourself (you just can't sell it)

[Daniel Cooper]

Just gave the latest podcast a listen and it was quite interesting and disappointing at the same time.

 

First half of it had to do with Macular Degeneration work Ichor is doing, mostly about enzymes related to cholesterol metabolism that effects vision health and links between cholesterol metabolic disorders and propensity to MD with passing mention of the AREDS formulation.

 

c60 discussion started around 16:50 (about halfway).  They're apparently not that interested in dissolving it in natural oils due to poor applicability to quality control and consistency called for in pharmaceuticals.  Said he prefers something more clearly chemically defined.  I imagine that would include Ethyl Oleate which is commonly used in pharmaceuticals but he mentioned nothing specific.  Also mentioned that for specific research that he would not prefer investigation an effect like life-span extension, preferring short term effects to long term ones.  He hinted they were doing some sort of study but doesn't expect anything to report till sometime in 2018.  When asked it he knew of anyone replicating the Baati study, he said he did not. Which is quite different from what Dr. Moussa said in his Anthony Lora video interview... probably because as a Baati co-author, Dr. Moussa would be more likely to be contacted by prospective researchers.   However, KMoody did say that c60 stability issues were worthy of more study by Ichor.

 

One big point KMoody stressed was that it is his belief that c60evoo is not a dietary supplement as defined by the FDA because it did not exist in the food supply prior to 1968.  Because it was not 1st synthesized until 1985 and before that existed only in chimney soot which never enters the food supply.  

 

He also mentioned feeling the social responsible to convey information about the potential lethal toxicity of c60 because of its high degree of instability when exposed to light in the presence of oxygen.  But gave no indication of any willingness to elaborate on that.

 

Near the end of the podcast KMoody talked about and interesting sounding protein synthesis process Ichor has developed to make raw P53 proteins for their automated assays. 

 

Only disappointing to me because I consider incomplete, vague, and ambiguous warnings of danger and death to have the inherent capacity to be overstated and misapplied, and thus to to mislead, and cannot help but wonder if that is the intent.  But otherwise very interesting and recommend listening to it yourself.

 

Howard

 

It is my opinion that once Ichor/KMoody raised the issue of apparently toxic C60oo effects they uncovered in their testing, the onerous fell to them to either publish that data in a peer reviewed journal in a timely fashion, or barring that to simply release their results here on LongeCity.

 

If they did not desire to openly discuss results, they should have remained silent.  As it is, it is not a completely unreasonable conclusion that their announcement of toxic effects of C60oo was simply an effort to spread FUD.  I personally am not yet convinced that this was their purpose, but their subsequent behavior has left that possibility on the table.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 01 December 2017 - 08:29 PM.

[sensei]

 As it is, it is not a completely unreasonable conclusion that their announcement of toxic effects of C60oo was simply an effort to spread FUD.  

 

Calling increased tumor growth toxicity is another example of the BS bad science that Ichor and K. Moody are promulgating. (like the bald - faced lie about not being able to develop a plant based product that can pass FDA muster)

 

Toxicity - pertaining to a toxin or poison  -- nether of which are remotely applicable to the transfected AML mouse model that is the basis for their claims.

 

No evidence of normal cell cytotoxicity has been indicated or provided.

 

 

If anything the C60 acted exactly as you would expect an anti-oxidant to act -- reducing oxidation products -- cancer cells are more sensitive to oxidation (specifically H2O2) because they produce less or no catalase as copmpared to normal cells.

 

With no innate immune system (the mice are an immunocompromised strain) -- H2O2 and hypochlorite producing macrophages and T-Cells would be non-present or in very low quantities.

 

 

The best that can be said is that it appears a particular formulation of C60OO led to increased tumor growth in EXISTING tumor cells in a transfected (viable AML cancer cells injected into) and immunocompromised mouse.

Edited by sensei, 02 December 2017 - 12:59 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I'm not going to argue whether their experiment was or was not ill conceived, that's a conversation to be had after they publish their experimental setup and their findings.

 

All we've got now is a warning with no data. 

 

 

 

[hav]

Anyone can make C60 for themselves -- and even if a patent was granted -- you can STILL make a patented item for yourself (you just can't sell it)

 

I think I agree with that.  If c60 only existed as a synthetically invented molecule and was patented as such, no one could legally make it except under license of the patent holder.  But as c60 actually occurs in nature, only a process to synthetically make it can be patented. Assuming that process is novel (never having been done before) and non-obvious (could not have been developed by an ordinarily skilled technician if assigned the task).  One would think that any process that is derivative of nature's way of creating c60 would fail on both of those grounds. Then there's the idea that dissolving c60 in oil could be novel and non-obvious.  Probably not since assessing water and oil solubility is kind of routine.  But a closer call might be a process patent for a specific application, like life extension or cancer prevention. The Baati crew probably have a lock on that.  But keep in mind that process patents are the weakest things going and the hardest to defend. Because courts have held that changing one step in a process, or leaving out one step for an end user to perform can defeat a process patent.  Bottom line is I agree that a c60 patent, even if granted, would probably not obstruct legally making it or c60-evoo yourself.  Getting c60 classified as a drug or banned as a hazardous material, however, could limit its legal availability. Thereby creating a limited monopoly opportunity driving up the price and perhaps the profitability.  One would think Baati closed the door a bit on the hazardous angle by proving c60-evoo non-toxic and life extending in rats.

 

Howard

[sensei]

I'm not going to argue whether their experiment was or was not ill conceived, that's a conversation to be had after they publish their experimental setup and their findings.

 

All we've got now is a warning with no data. 

 

It is still not TOXIC -- even if proven to increase tumor growth.

 

That anyone (longecity or Ichor) are calling the effect TOXIC -- is inaccurate and BAD SCIENCE.

[sensei]

If you think I'm ill informed call me out in person instead of hiding behind a tag.

 

What was ill informed about my post, exactly?  Be clear, specific and to the point.

 

If you want to critique something, address it transparently instead of hitting and running anonymously.

 

If you don't provide some scientifically germane (AND PREFERABLY PEER REVIEWED) foundation for your argument against a post -- your opinion is basically not worth the electrons to click on "ill-informed" and you are basically a coward that can't provide a cogent argument against another post.

 

Hit and Run drivers are scum -- don't be one.

 

iF YOU WANT PEER REVIEWED CITATIONS FROM ME THAT SUPPORT MY POSTS -- JUST ASK (IF I FORGOT TO ADD A LINK)

Edited by sensei, 03 December 2017 - 08:05 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

I'm not going to argue whether their experiment was or was not ill conceived, that's a conversation to be had after they publish their experimental setup and their findings.

 

All we've got now is a warning with no data. 

 

It is still not TOXIC -- even if proven to increase tumor growth.

 

That anyone (longecity or Ichor) are calling the effect TOXIC -- is inaccurate and BAD SCIENCE.

 

 

I'm not arguing with you on the issue of toxic vs. tumor promoting.  You certainly are correct about that but I don't see it as a big deal using the word "toxic" in casual conversation. 

 

What we want to know is if there are any adverse effects to consuming C60oo. Bottom line is we need Ichor to publish the details of their experiment and the data in some form.

 

As it is, we have their warning of potential adverse effects (tumor promotion) and not one shred of data to back it up.  So, you have to wonder, what is Ichor's intent here?  To advance the science of C60, or to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about a potential open source competitor?

 

I give them the benefit of the doubt, but the longer they go without publishing their data, the harder that becomes.

[sensei]

 

 

 

I'm not arguing with you on the issue of toxic vs. tumor promoting.  You certainly are correct about that but I don't see it as a big deal using the word "toxic" in casual conversation. 

 

 

 

 

Really?

 

Estrogen in and of itself is not toxic -- it is essential for bodily function in both males and females.

 

Yet it is a tumor promoter.

 

Should we call estrogen TOXIC in casual conversation?

[Daniel Cooper]

 

 

I'm not arguing with you on the issue of toxic vs. tumor promoting.  You certainly are correct about that but I don't see it as a big deal using the word "toxic" in casual conversation.

 

Really?

 

Estrogen in and of itself is not toxic -- it is essential for bodily function in both males and females.

 

Yet it is a tumor promoter.

 

Should we call estrogen TOXIC in casual conversation?

 

 

Evidently you missed the part where I said you are entirely correct about the proper terminology.

 

I just don't feel much inclined to argue over semantics when my real issue is that Ichor needs to release their data.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 December 2017 - 12:35 AM.

[sensei]

 

Evidently you missed the part where I said you are entirely correct about the proper terminology.

 

I just don't feel much inclined to argue over semantics when my real issue is that Ichor needs to release their data.

 

 

Didn't miss it.

 

But to be Brutally Honest, Ichor has not corrected any headlines regarding the labeling of C60OO as "TOXIC".

 

In fact,  their entire business model BENEFITS from having C60 dissolved in oil seen as "TOXIC", as their entire business is built around bringing PATENT-ABLE drugs to market on their own, or assist other companies in doing so.

 

(this is out of Kelsey's own mouth) -- see post #7 above

 

 

If I was Sarah Vaughter, and Ichor and Kelsey made the statements they made about my product ( re: C60 concentration in oil) without a proven chain of custody and without publishing a peer reviewed paper -- I would SUE!

 

If there was an independent agent that has provided proof of chain of custody of Vaughter C60OO and ensured non-adulteration -- and the tester was an independent third-party laboratory that has no conflict of interest (ICHOR has a huge conflict of interest) -- ichor needs to provide such data.

 

Else -- if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....  TRUST NOTHING VERIFY EVERYTHING

Edited by sensei, 04 December 2017 - 01:02 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I agree.  I am more and more skeptical with respect to Inchor's motives the longer they go without publishing their test data.  What's it been now?  Almost 18 months since they raised the issue?  Long enough.

 

And certainly, it is not in Inchor's interest to have a unpatentable "open source" product like C60oo if they intend to make a similar but patentable product.

 

Of course, they can end all this speculation tomorrow by simply publishing their test and results.

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 December 2017 - 01:36 AM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

Anyone can make C60 for themselves -- and even if a patent was granted -- you can STILL make a patented item for yourself (you just can't sell it)

 

I think I agree with that.  If c60 only existed as a synthetically invented molecule and was patented as such, no one could legally make it except under license of the patent holder.  But as c60 actually occurs in nature, only a process to synthetically make it can be patented. Assuming that process is novel (never having been done before) and non-obvious (could not have been developed by an ordinarily skilled technician if assigned the task).  One would think that any process that is derivative of nature's way of creating c60 would fail on both of those grounds. Then there's the idea that dissolving c60 in oil could be novel and non-obvious.  Probably not since assessing water and oil solubility is kind of routine.  But a closer call might be a process patent for a specific application, like life extension or cancer prevention. The Baati crew probably have a lock on that.  But keep in mind that process patents are the weakest things going and the hardest to defend. Because courts have held that changing one step in a process, or leaving out one step for an end user to perform can defeat a process patent.  Bottom line is I agree that a c60 patent, even if granted, would probably not obstruct legally making it or c60-evoo yourself.  Getting c60 classified as a drug or banned as a hazardous material, however, could limit its legal availability. Thereby creating a limited monopoly opportunity driving up the price and perhaps the profitability.  One would think Baati closed the door a bit on the hazardous angle by proving c60-evoo non-toxic and life extending in rats.

 

Howard

 

 

There is one US application by the original researchers that claims an oil product and method of application--

 

1. A stable biocompatible composition comprising: (a) a carrier selected from the group consisting of fats and oils; and (b) one compound selected from the group consisting of water-insoluble fullerenes, wherein said fullerenes are mostly dissolved in said earner. 

 

8. A method to maintain good health and/or to prolong the expected lifespan of a mammal, which comprises a step of administering to said mammal a stable biocompatible composition according to any claim 1, wherein said composition is administered intravenously, intramuscularly, subcutaneously, intradermally, intrathecal , intraperitoneally, rectally by suppositories, sublingually, orally, or by inhalation. 

 

 

Since that was filed more than three years ago, I'd expect it to be narrowed substantially, if it issues at all.

[Daniel Cooper]

I don't see any reason why that patent couldn't be granted, but the problem is that making C60oo at home is relatively simple so that even if you have the patent in hand, the ability of consumers to make their own product limits how much you can charge for this stuff before people simply bypass you and make it themselves.

 

But, if you establish enough fear about the product .... maybe no one is interested in making it themselves.

 

 

 

 

[Turnbuckle]

I don't see any reason why that patent couldn't be granted, 

 

 

Anyone who has ever prosecuted a patent application would expect a rejection based on obviousness, if not prior art. 

[hav]

I don't see any reason why that patent couldn't be granted, but the problem is that making C60oo at home is relatively simple so that even if you have the patent in hand, the ability of consumers to make their own product limits how much you can charge for this stuff before people simply bypass you and make it themselves.

 

But, if you establish enough fear about the product .... maybe no one is interested in making it themselves.

 

I think you've recited exactly why such a patent might either not be granted or might be invalidated.  The simple process of assessing the ability of a substance to mix in oil is routine and thus would probably fail the non-obvious test.  If it had ever been assessed before, you'd never need to get that far because it would fail the novelty test.  I would guess that the below embodiment would stand the best chance of being granted, since that's the process yielding the effect they actually discovered:

 

 

In a preferred embodiment, the invention is drawn to a method of prolonging the longevity of mammals, which comprises a step of adding to food or any nutritional composition a stable composition comprising an effective amount of [60]fullerene dispersed in a carrier selected from the group consisting of fats and oils.

 

Not so sure such a discovery, if it consists solely of an effect devoid of any novel and non-obvious mechanism, would be easy to defend.  Even against a commercial maker who does not sell it for the specific purpose discovered.  But that's not to say that an enterprising company with deep pockets and a boatload of lawyers might not acquire or license weak or frivolous patents and rake in a ton of money going through a litigation/settlement/licensing process anyway. It's a familiar business model.

 

Howard

[Daniel Cooper]

The fact that you can easily do a thing physically doesn't actually make it obvious.  As illustrated by the fact that nobody thought that putting C60 in olive oil might have health benefits before Batti's experiment.  After all, it wasn't terribly difficult to make an incandescent light bulb once you knew what you needed to do and what materials to use.

 

In any case, the patent office seems loath to invalidate a patent claim these days based on the "not obvious to one skilled in the arts" clause.  They hate that clause because it essentially involves a judgement call and can't be applied as a matter of rote.  Judgement calls like that are problematic because they are constantly called into question in courts during patent challenges, both for patents granted and those not granted.  Therefore, invalidating patent claims based on the "not obvious to one skilled in the art" clause has very much fallen out of favor in recent decades.  I have a number of patents, a few of which I told my employer we should not apply for because in my opinion they were in fact "obvious to one skilled in the arts", yet they were applied for and granted. Basically it has been my experience that unless there is a pre-existing patent that reads directly onto your patent application, more likely than not the patent will be granted.

 

So, I think that such a patent might in fact be granted, but the problem would be that you couldn't charge thousands of dollars per year for a supply because it is not physically difficult to make the product and at a sufficiently high cost people would be incentivised to do so.  Hence, what you might like to do is spread uncertainly and fear around that product while offering your "safer" (also patented) alternative that is not so easy for the average Joe to cook up in his kitchen.

 

N'est-ce pas?

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 December 2017 - 07:19 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

I don't see any reason why that patent couldn't be granted, 

 

 

Anyone who has ever prosecuted a patent application would expect a rejection based on obviousness, if not prior art. 

 

 

 

I think you might have prior art issues, but as I have said, I see very few patent applications rejected these days due to obviousness issues.

 

Besides .... was it in fact obvious to anyone that consuming C60 in olive oil should have health benefits?  I submit that it was not since the original intent of the experiment was to investigate potential toxicity.

 

But, as I said, I think you might have real issues with prior art.  

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 December 2017 - 07:18 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

I don't see any reason why that patent couldn't be granted, 

 

 

Anyone who has ever prosecuted a patent application would expect a rejection based on obviousness, if not prior art. 

 

 

 

I think you might have prior art issues, but as I have said, I see very few patent applications rejected these days due to obviousness issues.

 

Besides .... was it in fact obvious to anyone that consuming C60 in olive oil should have health benefits?  I submit that it was not since the original intent of the experiment was to investigate potential toxicity.

 

But, as I said, I think you might have real issues with prior art.  

 

 

The method claims might fly, but the solubility of C60 in various organic liquids was noted twenty years before Baati, so it would be obvious to dissolve it in a food grade organic liquid.

 

The room temperature solubility of pure C[sub 60] has been determined in 47 solvents. (1993)

Edited by Turnbuckle, 04 December 2017 - 07:55 PM.

[sensei]

Regardless,

One could legally sell C60OO as an industrial lubricant without violating a life extension patent, and people could use it however they wish.

My point is that ichor is in the business of developing NOVEL pharma, which C60OO is not.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

 

 

The method claims might fly, but the solubility of C60 in various organic liquids was noted twenty years before Baati, so it would be obvious to dissolve it in a food grade organic liquid.

 

The room temperature solubility of pure C[sub 60] has been determined in 47 solvents. (1993)

 

 

 

Not to belabor the point, but I think that part of the claims would be rejected on the basis of prior art (which your linked article establishes), rather than obviousness.

 

In the end, I think the patentablity of C60oo is a moot point.  Maybe someone gets a use patent, but as sensei notes, that doesn't prevent someone from selling the product for another use and people actually using it for whatever they wish.

 

In any case, if your desire is to have a product with a strong patent protecting it, C60oo isn't of much interest.  In fact, your interest would be in calling into question the safety of this product while offering your own "safer" product which does have a strong patent protecting it while ensuring that it isn't something that is easy to reproduce your kitchen.

 

 

ETA: I don't have access to the full text of the article you linked to, so perhaps they did not get close enough to dissolving it in OO to deny the claim as prior art.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 December 2017 - 08:39 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Regardless,

One could legally sell C60OO as an industrial lubricant without violating a life extension patent, and people could use it however they wish.

My point is that ichor is in the business of developing NOVEL pharma, which C60OO is not.

 

 

Sure. C60 is like benzene.There's an endless number of derivatives you could build with it, and especially valuable would be mito supplements as C60 seems to have a special pass for getting in there. I've previously seen with some interesting results using CoQ10 or HT mixed in a vehicle with C60, using red light as a sensitizer. Presumably these were grafted on.

[hav]

The fact that you can easily do a thing physically doesn't actually make it obvious.  As illustrated by the fact that nobody thought that putting C60 in olive oil might have health benefits before Batti's experiment.  After all, it wasn't terribly difficult to make an incandescent light bulb once you knew what you needed to do and what materials to use.

 

In any case, the patent office seems loath to invalidate a patent claim these days based on the "not obvious to one skilled in the arts" clause.  They hate that clause because it essentially involves a judgement call and can't be applied as a matter of rote.  Judgement calls like that are problematic because they are constantly called into question in courts during patent challenges, both for patents granted and those not granted.  Therefore, invalidating patent claims based on the "not obvious to one skilled in the art" clause has very much fallen out of favor in recent decades.  I have a number of patents, a few of which I told my employer we should not apply for because in my opinion they were in fact "obvious to one skilled in the arts", yet they were applied for and granted. Basically it has been my experience that unless there is a pre-existing patent that reads directly onto your patent application, more likely than not the patent will be granted.

 

So, I think that such a patent might in fact be granted, but the problem would be that you couldn't charge thousands of dollars per year for a supply because it is not physically difficult to make the product and at a sufficiently high cost people would be incentivised to do so.  Hence, what you might like to do is spread uncertainly and fear around that product while offering your "safer" (also patented) alternative that is not so easy for the average Joe to cook up in his kitchen.

 

N'est-ce pas?

 

The light bulb (being the meme of the brilliance of an inventor) is a bad example because the art at the time was inadequate as evidenced by all the previous trials and failures. But the definition of the non-obviousness requirement "is what it is" and the fact that the patent office might ignore it doesn't make it more defensible in court beyond the presumption of validity.  The bigger problem is getting a judge to distinguish between novelty and non-obviousness. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an otherwise brilliant judge ask, "Well if it's so obvious, why hasn't anyone done it before?"  Which if you think about it, goes to the heart of why "invention" is subjected to a double barreled test; the principal that not everything done first is actually an invention worthy of a monopoly.

 

Howard

[Daniel Cooper]

And I can't tell you how many patents I've looked at personally that appeared to be completely obvious to a person skilled in the arts, and yet they were granted.  My field is engineering, not pharmaceuticals, so perhaps the examiners are different in that area, but in my experience patent examiners have become increasingly loath to reject a patent on the basis of it being "obvious to one skilled in the arts".  I think there are two reasons for that - a general decline in the quality of patent examiners over the last few decades, they simply aren't aware of what should be obvious to one "skilled in the arts", and secondly that criteria - "obvious to one skilled in the art" is a subjective call.  What seems obvious to one person does not seem obvious to another.  Over the years examiners have ended up being hauled into courts to defend their decision wrt to something being or not being obvious to one skilled in the art.  Many have simply decided to punt the issue and either reject on the basis of "prior art" when it can be reasonably established, which is less subjective, or simply not reject at all on that basis.  As I said, I've been granted patents which I told my employer not to file for because what I was doing seemed entirely obvious to me.  Not only did they file, they were in every case granted.  At that point I decided that the patent process was fundamentally broken in the US.

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 06 December 2017 - 07:32 PM.