tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2176043814746877799..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Patentability: a perpetual problemVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4408883502655435342014-10-23T23:30:40.638+01:002014-10-23T23:30:40.638+01:00So...
Your comment about wasting taxpayer monies ...So...<br /><br />Your comment about wasting taxpayer monies is, well, errant, then?<br /><br />Why don't you just say so?<br /><br />Not sure what the courts have to do with this - non-granted applications do not see the courts and your premise was regarding applications that fail to obtain grant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69149208346675598882014-10-23T21:17:06.908+01:002014-10-23T21:17:06.908+01:00To Anon at 13:36; that is one interpretation of m...To Anon at 13:36; that is one interpretation of my comment, but there is another interpretation not leading to the presumption that taxpayers fund the process.<br /><br />Patent offices activities (UK, EPO etc) are funded solely by patentees, but one patentee may make a lot more use of the system than others, but pay the same amount. Whilst these other users may well be taxpayers, it is not their tax funding the system.<br /><br />I don't know enough about the court systems of EU countries so I can't comment on whether Judges salaries, chauffeur driven cars, court clerks, new buildings, leather seating and expensive coffee machines, are funded completely by the fees paid by litigants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43025340968345413712014-10-23T14:39:20.301+01:002014-10-23T14:39:20.301+01:00@Anonymous at 10:00am
I don't know who tol...@Anonymous at 10:00am <br /><br />I don't know who told you that "a patent claim is invalid if it covers things that aren't disclosed in the description of the invention", but they couldn't be more wrong. <br /><br />In fact, the entire purpose of a patent claim is to cover things that aren't disclosed in the description of the invention. If this were not so, there would be no need to have any claims, as the description alone would suffice to define the desired monopoly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6331845227705049722014-10-23T13:36:43.358+01:002014-10-23T13:36:43.358+01:00Anonymous @ 08:41,
Thank you - as I was unaware t...Anonymous @ 08:41,<br /><br />Thank you - as I was unaware that non-US systems use general taxpayer monies for patent application processing.<br /><br />Here in the states, all activities are funded by the applicants, so if the applicants want to waste their money, the taxpayers are completely unaffected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44210705261165688902014-10-23T10:24:52.921+01:002014-10-23T10:24:52.921+01:00It's all fun and games until you look at Mr Cr...It's all fun and games until you look at Mr Crowley's correspondence with the UKIPO.<br /><br />Dealing with this type of applicant is not an easy task and I think the UKIPO Examiners involved should be commended for the excellent job they do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6660075817769989382014-10-23T08:41:32.431+01:002014-10-23T08:41:32.431+01:00The simple fact is that a patent is only to be gra...The simple fact is that a patent is only to be granted when requirements of the Act are met.<br /><br />The facts of the case are that the requirements of the Act were not met. Therefore, no discussion is required and the IPkat could merely have referred to another loony patnet application wasting taxpayers' money. Although, to be fair, many non-looney applicants do so too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87561768582902443802014-10-22T22:08:29.628+01:002014-10-22T22:08:29.628+01:00Merpel suggests a special class of perpetual motio...Merpel suggests a special class of perpetual motion patents.<br /><br />I think that is toi a large extent what is proposed in this consultation:<br />https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/341899/discussion-patent-applications.pdf<br />at paragraphs 11-14.<br /><br />Alas, Ron is right. All government websites that have moved to the Gov.uk format have ended up losing a lot of the useful contentxxxxxxxxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15427043839485478806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-515861034797812192014-10-22T19:02:39.402+01:002014-10-22T19:02:39.402+01:00The IPC has at least four terms for alleged perpet...The IPC has at least four terms for alleged perpetual motion machines (perpetua mobila), but to retrieve the terms in the IPC you must search using the latin singular wording, as the entries are for "Alleged perpetuum mobile". [ To track them down I had to search for "alleged" first.] The terms are F03B 17/04; F03G 7/10; H03K 53/00; and H02N 11/00. <br /><br />Incidentally I tried looking for the IPC under the IPO's new web site. It's awful. Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81299553538516838242014-10-22T18:42:21.109+01:002014-10-22T18:42:21.109+01:00I love the fact that GB 1426698 has gone on to be ...I love the fact that GB 1426698 has gone on to be been cited as prior art in the field of selective pet door opening: US 8839556 <br /><br />"As explained in patent document GB 1426698 (Pedrick), a problem with a simple cat flap is that other unwanted animals can also enter the house, and that earlier patent document proposed a chromatically-selective locking system for a cat flap. Of course, that earlier system is ineffective against unwanted animals having the same color fur as the “authorized” pet."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52843530584600760042014-10-22T14:30:13.718+01:002014-10-22T14:30:13.718+01:00Merpel,
An issued patent has a presumption of va...Merpel, <br /><br />An issued patent has a presumption of validity, which implies UTILITY, novelty and inventiveness.<br /><br />Perpetual motion machines are supposed to lack utility. Not allowing them to issue is in the public interest as a patent might encourage people to invest in such things.Michael Factorhttp://blog.ipfactor.co.ilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35462735894340394102014-10-22T14:20:26.344+01:002014-10-22T14:20:26.344+01:00I'm @Anonymous at 10:00am, back again and more...I'm @Anonymous at 10:00am, back again and more confused than ever now. I was told that a patent claim is invalid if it covers things that aren't disclosed in the description of the invention. If the description only describes a perpetual motion machine, can the patent really cover a non-perpetual motion machines that the patent doesn't describe?<br /><br />Can anyone help again, please?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30607968184798675572014-10-22T13:32:09.863+01:002014-10-22T13:32:09.863+01:00The USPTO's MPEP states categorically that per...The USPTO's MPEP states categorically that perpetual motion machines will not be entertained. Therefore, they have to be camouflaged. One of the better efforts (in the sense that it got granted) is US7109671.<br /><br />With reference to Arthur Pedrick, he was gamekeeper-turned-poacher - an ex-Examiner who filed absurd inventions for the fun of it. Being an ex-Examiner, he knew how to exploit the system, and eventually the Comptroller instructed the Examiners simply to allow them, thus depriving Arthur of his fun (I don't think Arthur ever paid the grant fees).<br /><br />However, everyone should own a copy of GB 1426698, undoubtedly Arthur's high watermark and a miracle of unity of invention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75762413917929934152014-10-22T11:04:59.260+01:002014-10-22T11:04:59.260+01:00Don't know how common perpetual motion machine...Don't know how common perpetual motion machine patent applications are, but Professor Wadlow wrote a great article about them, "Patents for perpetual motion machines", in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice back in 2007 or thereabouts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63230569707626106482014-10-22T10:49:32.987+01:002014-10-22T10:49:32.987+01:00@Anonymous 10:00 Any perpetual-motion patent that ...@Anonymous 10:00 Any perpetual-motion patent that merely describes an arrangement of mechanical components, and that doesn't contain a phrase such as "...for producing net energy" (or similar), has the potential to cover legitimate future devices (e.g. a gearbox for a conventional combustion engine).<br /><br />To take an example at random, consider granted US patent 6,694,844. Claim 1 reads:<br /><br />"Apparatus comprising a support frame, an axially horizontal stationary encircling, connected surface carried by said support, said surface having an interior and an exterior, an offset center, a plurality of spokes extending diametrally through said offset center of said surface through a rotatable hub at the offset center thereof, said spokes being spaced apart axially and circumferentially of the surface and being axially slidable diametrally of the surface through the hub at the surface's offset center; weighted objects on opposite ends of each of the spokes; said weights contacting the interior of said surface whereby the spokes move axially of the surface upon rotation to raise and lower the weights on the ends of extended portions of the spokes as the weights rotate on the interior of the surface, further including a plurality of arms, each comprised of two sections and attached to the hub at one end and to a spoke at the other end for rotation in a plane coincident with the hub's plane of rotation, said two sections being moveably connected at a point between the attachment to the hub and the attachment to the spoke, for movement along the plane of movement of the spoke, which allows the arm to extend and retract as the spoke slides through the hub."<br /><br />There is nothing in the claim that inherently limits such arrangement to the realm of non-industrially useful devices.<br />TJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40434408227614329652014-10-22T10:34:13.732+01:002014-10-22T10:34:13.732+01:00Unfortunately, in my experience, many perpetual mo...Unfortunately, in my experience, many perpetual motion "inventions" look, taste and smell like investor scams. Typically there are three people involved: the inventor, who may or may not be aware of the unfeasability of the invention, an intermediary, who is very definitely either the con man or a shill, and the investor (or mark). I've seen the same configuration already a few times, and I have little doubt that somebody is enriching himself thanks to the gullibility of somebody else.<br /><br />Anyway, regardless of whether there is a scam, there are in my view serious issues of professional ethics in representing a client for an invention which a patent attorney with a technical or scientific background should recognise as being evidently unworkable. I'm personally very relieved by being able to tell such prospective clients that the patent offices of the world will reject their applications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-92113367785521822762014-10-22T10:27:15.288+01:002014-10-22T10:27:15.288+01:00I somehow doubt the Crowley problem arises suffici...I somehow doubt the Crowley problem arises sufficiently often to justify the cost of any special provision. <br />The sad thing is the number of misguided individuals who's dismal understanding of basic physics leads them to make the same mistakes over again.<br />This is not similar to Pedric. To the best of my recall Pedric's inventions were not perpetual motion. They generally exploited well accepted physical principles in a way which was superficially credible. This left the IPO with the then impossible task of proving they could not be made to work and so were not sufficiently disclosed. Conversely they could not be infringed.Universal adjusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04556457717598895014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9118256588433225962014-10-22T10:26:46.165+01:002014-10-22T10:26:46.165+01:00For anon at 10.00:
'A machine for moving a pow...For anon at 10.00:<br />'A machine for moving a powdered substance from point A to point B comprising a means to move the substance upwards at point A, a means to move it to B, a means to move the substance downwards at point B and to discard it, wherein movement of the substance downwards at point B assists in moving it upwards at point A.'<br /><br />The comprising language means the claim covers a machine with an electric engine, but as written it represents a perpetual motion machine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68620610766191089802014-10-22T10:12:57.917+01:002014-10-22T10:12:57.917+01:00@SG: I do like the "big red P" suggestio...@SG: I do like the "big red P" suggestion. The IPO can even charge extra for it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13345475469230408682014-10-22T10:00:30.502+01:002014-10-22T10:00:30.502+01:00In addition to anon's comments above, I also t...In addition to anon's comments above, I also think the IPO, as a government body, has at least a mild public service remit. The patent thicket is thick enough already without adding more unenforceable patents.<br /><br />Although in the interests of unburdening the courts, maybe they <i>could</i> be simply granted but marked with a big red 'P', to show that they pertain to perpetual motion devices. If a potential licensee is sceptical of the First Law, they can then go ahead and pay for a licence...SGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533346450129049222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13783339312838515272014-10-22T10:00:09.569+01:002014-10-22T10:00:09.569+01:00@Anonymous of 9.46 writes: "In response to Me...@Anonymous of 9.46 writes: "In response to Merpel's comment on perpetual motion patents not being infringed, the claims might still cover machines that were possible. That risk in itself justifies rejecting these cases". I'm not very technically minded myself, so I wonder if you or any other reader can give me an example of a patent for an impossible machine which has claims covering machines that are themselves possible". Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36680709775446284732014-10-22T09:55:42.864+01:002014-10-22T09:55:42.864+01:00@Anonymous 07:59 I wouldn't have thought that ...@Anonymous 07:59 I wouldn't have thought that a patent for an invention that cannot by definition work would cause any bigger problem in infringement proceedings than an application for summary judgment on the basis that there is no case to answer. As for licensing to the gullible, this can happen irrespective of whether a patent has been granted, whether the "inventor" seeks to license his invention as a trade secret.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54896567832055376052014-10-22T09:46:13.200+01:002014-10-22T09:46:13.200+01:00In response to Merpel's comment on perpetual m...In response to Merpel's comment on perpetual motion patents not being infringed, the claims might still cover machines that were possible. That risk in itself justifies rejecting these cases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3993136853524109292014-10-22T09:19:25.459+01:002014-10-22T09:19:25.459+01:00Ahh back to the days of Pedric....Ahh back to the days of Pedric....DrZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9090529683939062262014-10-22T07:59:24.975+01:002014-10-22T07:59:24.975+01:00There was a period when the IPO dd grant perpetual...There was a period when the IPO dd grant perpetual motion machines. However if bad patents are granted, they can cause more trouble when someone tries to enforce them or licence them to he gullible. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com