Strange Patents.

Via Semi-skimmed comes news of the rejection of a patent application. The full .pdf file is here.
Essentially some bint tried to patent 0 and 1 as used in binary numbers, thus computing code, and claim a rake off from all digital communications. An interesting concept yet doomed to failure I fear. What's worse is that she based the claim on the idea of prior art....that there was art prior to her filing is obvious, but she based her whole claim on the fact that that prior art had been done by Babylonians, she was one such and therefore....
Two extracts:

It seems to me that the
applicant has completely misunderstood the patent system; as far as I can tell from this
application, she has not invented anything. However, as I have already found that the
specification does not disclose the invention clearly enough, I am reluctant to make a
decision as to whether or not it is an invention for the purposes of the Act. That is to
say, if I cannot understand the invention, how can I say whether or not it is a patentable
invention? In the circumstances, there would appear to be no need for me to reach a
decision on this issue and therefore I prefer to leave the matter undecided.

and:

I have no doubt that all of this makes perfect sense to Miss Siddiq, but I have to
confess that I have not been able to follow her argument very far at all. In fairness to
Miss Siddiq, she has gone to extreme lengths to provide the Patent Office with as
much information as she can find in connection with her application. (For example,
when the Hearings Clerk asked Miss Siddiq whether or not she would attend a hearing,
her response extended to some 854 pages.)

You may not be too surprised to find that the application for a patent was not granted.