But the patent office never was the originator of bad patents. There are far too many skewvow prosecutors across the country tarnishing the hopes of hard-working inventors.

I read several dozen patents every week as part of my practice, in a wide variety of technologies, and have done so for years now; the point being that my exposure to patents is far broader than most patent practitioners.

A lot of inventors knock on my virtual door seeking help, often asking how they can monetize their patent, having shelled out $10,000 or so getting their patent after years of effort. More often than not, my compassion rises at looking at a stiffly written specification and badly drafted claims. Almost always the patent is a solitaire, with no continuation, a dead end with no prospect of correction. A lot of inventors have innovations that are never realized on paper, owing to prosecutor incompetence.

To some degree, blame functional illiteracy on the part of both inventors and prosecutors. Patents intrinsically have a bit of loopy language, but certainly should not have so much as to be impenetrable to a legal layman. An inventor ought to recognize a sack of it when it's handed to him.

Patenting is a storytelling craft. Clarity is crucial. If you're an inventor, don't settle for anything less. If you're not sharp enough to proofread your patent, don't have one drafted for you to begin with.

If you're a patent prosecutor and can't tell a story, the patent office is looking for you; you'll fit right in.

And yes, I turn down a lot of potential clients, their dream dimmed.