<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia Citations in Patents Up 59 Percent[/b]
Patently-O
The number of US patents issued last year that contain one or more references to Wikipedia articles totaled 809, a 59 percent jump from 2008. ...

and more »

View the article

This is not terribly scary, as every patent has a section in which the "prior art" is detailed. In that case, you're helped by any citation to things which are either generally known, or at least generally known to those skilled in the art. If you can find it on Wikipedia, it's res ipsa loquitur proof that it's part of the body of knowledge that is generally well-known (and as such has either been patented already by somebody, or is unpatentable due to being public domain knowledge). Use of WP to prove "the wisdom of the crowds" here, is actually a valid one.

I've seen citations to Wikipedia in the prosecution history much more commonly than this. Most of them do not end up as references on the face of the issued patent.

Examiners are overworked and, like reporters, lazy. I believe that patent prosecutors would be wise to know what Wikipedia says about their field. I've often wondered whether they might "help" articles show how innovative their inventions are.