Your pips have different vertical heights. If you had, let's say, each of the 7s side-by-side, the length of the column would differ between the cards. I think you've missed a chance to bring in original artwork. Following the suggestions above, adding drawings of these inventors as court cards can (1) break up the monotony of patent drawing after patent drawing after patent drawing, (2) clearly distinguish court cards from number cards so that card players regain some utility, (3) demonstrate to value to potential backers so that they're not just receiving curated cut and paste images. I'd have to
really like patents to forgo a Heretic deck, or a Frontier deck, for example. And (this is partially a question of personal taste) I don't care for the back design. I don't see how it fits in with the theme of the deck--it seems out of place.
What drew you to the topic of patents? As Nate suggests, it seems a little... shoe-horned into this medium. Who do you have in mind as your target audience? And following on that: why USPCC? With them, you're saddling yourself with higher prices, higher minimum quantities, and you're not even using their branding. Sure, cardists, magicians, Bike collectors etc. will prefer USPCC over a boutique printer, but are you really going to get that much interest from those groups? Will your target audience be big enough to meet that minimum threshold, and will they care about a magic finish or the use/non-use of the Bicycle brand?
You're in a bit of a middle ground between piquing the interest of people who like/know patents, and popular interest in these inventors in particular. I'm not sure the deck is strong enough to "hook" much of either group. I don't have suggestions for what to improve, though. Let me ponder that a while longer.
PS: Have you seen the book that came out of
this project?