Pedrick's spirit alive and kicking in Australia

An apparently important decision regarding what is and is not patentable subject matter in Australia has come to the attention of the IPKat, courtesy of the Australian & New Zealand IP law blog from IP lawyers Philips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick. The decision (available in full here) concerns an invention relating to the new and exciting science of subtronics, which the IPKat was previously unfamiliar with. The claimed invention in Australian patent application 2003208113 by inventor Milton Edgar Anderson reads as follows:
1. The complete absence of any precedent or any assistance whatever from the scientific fraternity following the early disclosure of the existence of electrosubtronic fields that started with a letter to the CSIRO in Australia dated 23rd February 1999 has culminated in the discovery of the neutrino atom by splitting the electron thus conclusively confirming the existence of a nonmaterial of spiritual DNA through which God has conveyed the information to mankind that has enabled me to disclose new laws of electric induction that have been hidden from science for over 200 years due to a misinterpretation of the electrophorus invented by Volta in 1775 thus isolating the conceptual core of quantum theory in placing God as the principle arbitrator in the new science of subtronics that will guide mankind into the next millennium in establishing that God created the universe.

2. A practical application of the newly discovered laws of electric induction of claim 1 in providing the highly efficient automatic traction motor or ATM described in the Provisional Patent Specification.

3. Any new application of the new laws of electric induction claimed in claim 2.

4. Any improvement to an existing electromagnetic device or motor by employing the new laws of electric induction claimed in claims 1, 2 and 3.

5. Any new communication method derived from the new laws of electric induction of claim 1.

6. Any new computer or other device attributable to the disclosure of the neutrino atom and/or antimatter radiation.

One part of the specification illustrated the concept of subtronics through the use of an experimental set up (shown above right) including a vehicle spark coil, spaced brass rods, a plastic drinking straw and an oscilloscope, which was said to confirm the discovery of the neutrino atom and disprove the electron as being an indivisible unit of negative electricity.

The patent examiner had objected that the claims did not define any invention, and that the application did not pass the Australian patentability test of relating to "a manner of manufacture". The applicant was, after a total of ten examination reports, unable to move the examiner and the case then came to be decided by a Deputy Commissioner of Patents, who had little hesitation in agreeing with the examiner, adding:
"While expressed in an unconventional way, it appears that what is intended to be claimed is the discovery of “a new law of electric induction” or “the new science of subtronics” and, very broadly, the application of that “law”. I do not intend to make any judgement on the merit or validity of the applicant’s scientific theories however, from the specification, the applicant’s own submissions and my own knowledge of the field I would conclude that the applicant’s views on these matters are unlikely to be shared by many if any of the persons skilled in the relevant arts and particularly theoretical physicists or electrical engineers working in the field of motor design. It would also seem the case that in describing a new science or “law” the description falls far short of enabling those persons to understand the discovery said to be made or any application of it. Certainly the type of experiment referred to in the description or the submissions is not capable of altering that situation and similarly since the issue here is not one of utility I do not believe anything would be gained from attending the demonstration offered by the applicant.

There are limits to the subject matter for which a patent can be granted aside from the requirement that a claimed invention be novel and non-obvious. It must also be a manner of manufacture. This term derives from the Statute of Monopolies of 1623 and reflects a balance between those activities and developments to which society wishes to encourage by the grant of a patent and those to which granting patent rights is considered inappropriate. These notions have evolved over time however certain fields have always been excluded including expressions of human intellectual activity relating to literature, music and other of the fine arts. More relevantly to the current situation, discoveries of the laws of nature or science, scientific theories, ideas, mere schemes and plans and mathematical algorithms per se have also been regarded as not exhibiting the requirements of a manner of manufacture. This does not mean those activities are not important but simply do not reflect the fields of human endeavour for which a patent should be granted. Of course an application of a law or principle of science producing a particular practical and useful result is a different matter and is likely to fall within the scope of patentable subject matter."
The IPKat will leave any interested readers to figure out for themselves whether there was indeed anything patentable in Mr Anderson's application, but thinks that the judicious use of quotation marks in the decision seems to say as much about what the Delegate thought of the invention itself as the inventor's unconventional use of capitalisation in his application says about his state of mind. Merpel, however, just thinks that Australian patent examiners must have too much time on their hands.
Pedrick's spirit alive and kicking in Australia Pedrick's spirit alive and kicking in Australia Reviewed by David Pearce on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 Rating: 5


  1. Looks like Aussie patent illustrators have/spend too much time on their hands also...

  2. ... would also add that the headline does a disservice to Mr Pedrick, who's inventions, however fanciful and outlandish, were always (I think!) within the accepted laws of physics...

  3. Perhaps a little unfair on Arthur's memory (particularly as he never tried to get any of his applications granted), but I'm sure he would have appreciated the sheer lunacy of this one.

  4. Agreed! See also: US20060071122

  5. Brilliant! Thanks for bringing this to our attention, David

  6. H'm.

    Claim 1 doesn't claim anything - it simply an (alleged) historical statement. Also, 'of' in line 7 should be 'or'. Claim 3 is improperly dependent on claim 2, which claims practical applications, not laws. If the chap had had a good patent attorney, he could have avoided mistakes of this kind.

  7. More from the estimable JQ St Clair, aka the “Hyperspace Research Institute”.

    (Of course, St Clair/Sinclair was the family name of the 1st Earl of Caithness, who founded Rosslyn Chapel…)

    US20070285325, Chi energy amplifier
    US20060180473, Water energy generator
    US20060168937, Magnetic monopole spacecraft
    US20060145019, Triangular spacecraft
    US20060144035, Photon spacecraft
    US20060112848, Permanent magnet propulsion system
    US20060072226, Remote viewing amplifier
    US20060071122, Full body teleportation system
    US20060070371, Electric dipole moment propulsion system
    US20060044139, Internet accessible mail box system
    US20060038081, Electric dipole spacecraft
    US20060014125, Walking through walls training system
    US20050287984, Internet cellular phone prepaid service
    US20040200925, Cavitating oil hyperspace energy generator
    US20040164824, Hyperspace energy generator
    US20040102810, Hyperspace torque generator
    US20030230675, Rotor inductance propulsion system
    US20030209637, Rotating electrostatic propulsion system
    US20030209636, Bobbin electromagnetic field propulsion vehicle
    US20030209635, Electric dipole moment propulsion system
    US20030197093, Magnetic vortex wormhole generator

    “I want to believe!”

    (some of these – but not all! – include the following:
    Not Applicable.
    hmmmmmm )


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.