Our readers know that Friday is the traditional day of "light IP" on this blog and so the IPKat thanks Neil Thomson (Boult Wade Tennant) for alerting the kat to US patent US 2007035812 -"for amusement only" as Neil points out.A divine cat (left) can be viewed at the British Museum.
The IPKat wondered how such an unusual patent could have gone unnoticed for so long and has conducted some background research into Chris Roller and his powers. So this Kat dutifully wants to give credit to the Patently-O weblog whose bloggers first reported on this patent in 2007. However, Merpel thinks that something as "divine" as this patent deserves to be mentioned at least twice: due to its heightened relevance in the times of the credit crunch and mostly because today is a Friday. Neil also raises a valid point when he muses that the patent "...kind of raises the question of whether he [Christopher Anthony Roller] is entitled to claim small entity status."
"Abstract of US 2007035812 (A1)
Christopher Anthony Roller is a godly entity. "Granters" had been given my powers (acquired my powers) (via God probably). These "granters" have been receiving financial gain from godly powers. These "granters" may be using their powers without morals. Chris Roller wants exclusive right to the ethical use and financial gain in the use of godly powers on planet Earth. The design of godly-products have no constraints, just like any other invention, but the ethnic consideration of it's use will likely be based on a majority vote of a group, similar to law creation. The commission
I require could range from 0-100% of product price, depending on the product's
value and use.Description of US 2007035812 (A1)
[0001] Christopher Anthony Roller wants exclusive right to the ethical use and financial gain in the use of godly powers on planet Earth.
Please click here to retrieve the full patent details.
To read about the lawsuit between Christopher Roller and David Copperfield’s Disappearing, Inc., please click here.
To watch Christopher Roller talking about his powers, please click here.
Reviewed by Birgit Clark
on
Friday, August 21, 2009
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
Brilliant!
ReplyDeleteI particularly like the incisive analysis of the in the dispute with David Copperfield:
"Plaintiff’s Complaint is best described as a claim for
usurpation of Godly powers, which as this Court is aware, is beyond the jurisdiction of
this Court or any court of this earth."
Very strange! But fortunately it is only an abandoned application, not a granted patent.
ReplyDeleteTo show a view of the Kat of all Kats: The Gayer-Anderson Cat has made my day. This cat almost certainly had, and may still have. godly powers. Don't stare at it for too long.
ReplyDeleteFirst, this is old news, having made the rounds in other IP blogs some time back. Second, please learn the difference between a published application and a gratned patent. Anyone can file a piece of garbage and get it published as an application if they pay the fee; this particular application never made it through as a patent, having been rejected by the USPTO during examination.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous 10:31am.
ReplyDeleteFirst, of course it's old news. That's why Birgit mentioned that it was first reported on Patently-O in 2007.
Second, please learn the difference between a granted patent and a gratned patent.