Scale is huge—will claim anything is patentable

Footnote 120. See PLOTKIN, supra note 70, at 102 (“Supply every engineer with state-of-the-art artificial invention technology and train them in how to use that technology, and you have effectively boosted the level of ordinary inventive skill in the field . . . .”); id. at 112 (“What this means is that the patent examiner will need to ask whether an inventor of ordinary skill, using artificial invention technology, would have found the invention at issue obvious.”). On the contrary, Plotkin recognized that if patent examiners do not acknowledge that those of ordinary skill in the art utilize invention technologies, inventors can employ these technologies to create vast numbers of patentable inventions that are obvious using advanced technologies but would not have been obvious without the technology (and thus are patentable under the “old standard”). See id. at 107 (explaining that if patents inventors do not take into account the effect of publicly available “artificial invention technology” on the inventor of ordinary skill, then there may be a “patent flood” for patents on obvious inventions); see also William Samore, Artificial Intelligence and the Patent System: Can a New Tool Render a Once Patentable Idea Obvious?, 29 SYRACUSE J. SCI. & TECH. L. 113, 142 (2013) (arguing the widespread use of genetic programming will “change invention and creative thinking” and make previously non-obvious inventions obvious and non-patentable); Saurabh Vishnubhakat, The Antitrusting of Patentability, 48 SETON HALL L. REV. 71, 95 (2017) (discussing the identification of what constitutes a person having ordinary skill).