US Patent Office Has Granted Patents for Perpetuum Mobile

[Pirate88179]

Sounds like you have bought into each and every conspiacy theory that has even been invented.  I don't think you left any single one out. If you seriously think that the 911 attacks were an "inside job" using "a missle and a drone", there is not a single thing I can say in response to you because you are too far gone to be reasoned with.  I don't mean that as an insult, but I am seriously at a loss for words.

Bill

[shruggedatlas]

@All,

I spoke with an examiner and will pursue this thing further. Amazingly, the patentee has brought several models to the US Patent Office but none of them had been a working model, just experiment "demonstrating" that potentially such motor can be built. And this is how the examiners were convinced of its viability!? Interestingly, although the very title says "Permanent Magnet Motor" the examiner tried to persuade me that the patent had been issued solely for the partiular construction of the magnet device. When I pressed him he said that the approval of this patent has passed several levels of scrutiny and the final decision hasn't been only his. Of course, I have no intention of harming anybody at the patent office while recognizing that we're all humans and mistakes are made. This is a serious mistake (not to require proof positive for such an important claim of far-reaching consequences), however, and it must be corrected. The examiner insisted that I should contact Frank Fecera himself. Aside from the fact that I did that and all my attempts to speak to him were in vain (I hear only a message on his answering machine, not to say that it was very difficult to get his telephone number) I think that it's US Patent Office's duty to require a demonstration if they want to save face. This patent is on public record and no excuses with NDA's and private companies' rules hold any water this time. Steorn, Torbay, Perendev etc. may escape from such scrutiny. This one cannot. Besides, Steorn would be out of their minds to demonstrate anything before Fecera proves that his device is viable, otherwise Steorn will be infringing on Fecera's patent and Fecera will own everything Steorn demonstrates. This is the status of this important inquiry as of today.

Does anyone know how a review process of an already issued patent can be initiated in the US Patent Office by a third party?

There is a process by which an issued patent can be overturned, but this process involves courts and lawyers.  This is expensive, and normally only done by a party with a financial interest, for example by someone with a desire to market a similar product, but with no desire to pay licensing fees to the original patent holder.

I have to ask.  Why does it bother you that there is a nonworking patent on the books?  It is one of many, I assure you.  The fact that it is a perpetual motion device is perhaps the only thing of note about it.

Keep in mind that the primary reason that the patent office kicks back PMM patents and demands working demos, is that it saves time.  The examiner does not need to spend the hundred plus hours necessary to review prior art, but can simply reject it after a few minutes of scanning the application.  This is not done out of a desire to keep the patent registry "scientifically correct".  That ship has long sailed, and frankly there is no desire to allocate sufficient resources to make this happen.

[Omnibus]

@All,

I spoke with an examiner and will pursue this thing further. Amazingly, the patentee has brought several models to the US Patent Office but none of them had been a working model, just experiment "demonstrating" that potentially such motor can be built. And this is how the examiners were convinced of its viability!? Interestingly, although the very title says "Permanent Magnet Motor" the examiner tried to persuade me that the patent had been issued solely for the partiular construction of the magnet device. When I pressed him he said that the approval of this patent has passed several levels of scrutiny and the final decision hasn't been only his. Of course, I have no intention of harming anybody at the patent office while recognizing that we're all humans and mistakes are made. This is a serious mistake (not to require proof positive for such an important claim of far-reaching consequences), however, and it must be corrected. The examiner insisted that I should contact Frank Fecera himself. Aside from the fact that I did that and all my attempts to speak to him were in vain (I hear only a message on his answering machine, not to say that it was very difficult to get his telephone number) I think that it's US Patent Office's duty to require a demonstration if they want to save face. This patent is on public record and no excuses with NDA's and private companies' rules hold any water this time. Steorn, Torbay, Perendev etc. may escape from such scrutiny. This one cannot. Besides, Steorn would be out of their minds to demonstrate anything before Fecera proves that his device is viable, otherwise Steorn will be infringing on Fecera's patent and Fecera will own everything Steorn demonstrates. This is the status of this important inquiry as of today.

Does anyone know how a review process of an already issued patent can be initiated in the US Patent Office by a third party?

There is a process by which an issued patent can be overturned, but this process involves courts and lawyers.  This is expensive, and normally only done by a party with a financial interest, for example by someone with a desire to market a similar product, but with no desire to pay licensing fees to the original patent holder.

I have to ask.  Why does it bother you that there is a nonworking patent on the books?  It is one of many, I assure you.  The fact that it is a perpetual motion device is perhaps the only thing of note about it.

Keep in mind that the primary reason that the patent office kicks back PMM patents and demands working demos, is that it saves time.  The examiner does not need to spend the hundred plus hours necessary to review prior art, but can simply reject it after a few minutes of scanning the application.  This is not done out of a desire to keep the patent registry "scientifically correct".  That ship has long sailed, and frankly there is no desire to allocate sufficient resources to make this happen.

Perpetuum mobile claim is dramatically out of the ordinary and I will not in any way consider it of significance less than that. The US Patent Office is the official governmental agency due to protect reason and not to protect nonsense. This goes without saying. To think it?s otherwise is to accept that USA is facing a catastrophe. I will not in any way forget that, neither any reasonable person should, no matter how tempting it is now that patents for perpetuum mobile devices have been noticed to have been granted by the USPTO seems to be to conveniently dismiss it. It is hypocritical to elevate to the skies the significance of the US Patent Office when it fits one's interests and to belittle it when interests require it. I will never agree to that, neither the American public will agree to that. I assure you that the US Patent Office will also not agree that it's regular business is to protect just anything, never mind if it's nonsense.

Therefore, instead of finding ways to explain that something obviously very significant isn?t significant, it would be much more productive to suggest ways to right this wrong within the system of the US Patent Office and not let it off the hook by going to courts. This will also be significant in that it would prevent future errors of the US Patent Office, especially of this magnitude.

[shruggedatlas]

@All,

I spoke with an examiner and will pursue this thing further. Amazingly, the patentee has brought several models to the US Patent Office but none of them had been a working model, just experiment "demonstrating" that potentially such motor can be built. And this is how the examiners were convinced of its viability!? Interestingly, although the very title says "Permanent Magnet Motor" the examiner tried to persuade me that the patent had been issued solely for the partiular construction of the magnet device. When I pressed him he said that the approval of this patent has passed several levels of scrutiny and the final decision hasn't been only his. Of course, I have no intention of harming anybody at the patent office while recognizing that we're all humans and mistakes are made. This is a serious mistake (not to require proof positive for such an important claim of far-reaching consequences), however, and it must be corrected. The examiner insisted that I should contact Frank Fecera himself. Aside from the fact that I did that and all my attempts to speak to him were in vain (I hear only a message on his answering machine, not to say that it was very difficult to get his telephone number) I think that it's US Patent Office's duty to require a demonstration if they want to save face. This patent is on public record and no excuses with NDA's and private companies' rules hold any water this time. Steorn, Torbay, Perendev etc. may escape from such scrutiny. This one cannot. Besides, Steorn would be out of their minds to demonstrate anything before Fecera proves that his device is viable, otherwise Steorn will be infringing on Fecera's patent and Fecera will own everything Steorn demonstrates. This is the status of this important inquiry as of today.

Does anyone know how a review process of an already issued patent can be initiated in the US Patent Office by a third party?

There is a process by which an issued patent can be overturned, but this process involves courts and lawyers.  This is expensive, and normally only done by a party with a financial interest, for example by someone with a desire to market a similar product, but with no desire to pay licensing fees to the original patent holder.

I have to ask.  Why does it bother you that there is a nonworking patent on the books?  It is one of many, I assure you.  The fact that it is a perpetual motion device is perhaps the only thing of note about it.

Keep in mind that the primary reason that the patent office kicks back PMM patents and demands working demos, is that it saves time.  The examiner does not need to spend the hundred plus hours necessary to review prior art, but can simply reject it after a few minutes of scanning the application.  This is not done out of a desire to keep the patent registry "scientifically correct".  That ship has long sailed, and frankly there is no desire to allocate sufficient resources to make this happen.

Perpetuum mobile claim is dramatically out of the ordinary and I will not in any way consider it of significance less than that. The US Patent Office is the official governmental agency due to protect reason and not to protect nonsense. This goes without saying. To think it?s otherwise is to accept that USA is facing a catastrophe. I will not in any way forget that, neither any reasonable person should, no matter how tempting it is now that patents for perpetuum mobile devices have been noticed to have been granted by the USPTO seems to be to conveniently dismiss it. It is hypocritical to elevate to the skies the significance of the US Patent Office when it fits one's interests and to belittle it when interests require it. I will never agree to that, neither the American public will agree to that. I assure you that the US Patent Office will also not agree that it's regular business is to protect just anything, never mind if it's nonsense.

Therefore, instead of finding ways to explain that something obviously very significant isn?t significant, it would be much more productive to suggest ways to right this wrong within the system of the US Patent Office and not let it off the hook by going to courts. This will also be significant in that it would prevent future errors of the US Patent Office, especially of this magnitude.

What I am saying is that there IS a way to right every wrong patent.  I assume you only care about the ones still in effect, i.e. those filed 20 years ago or more recently.  So, just get a few (or more) billion dollars together and sue every patent holder who you believe holds an invalid patent.  Currently, the average cost of single patent lawsuit is $2 million, give or take.

[Omnibus]

@All,

I spoke with an examiner and will pursue this thing further. Amazingly, the patentee has brought several models to the US Patent Office but none of them had been a working model, just experiment "demonstrating" that potentially such motor can be built. And this is how the examiners were convinced of its viability!? Interestingly, although the very title says "Permanent Magnet Motor" the examiner tried to persuade me that the patent had been issued solely for the partiular construction of the magnet device. When I pressed him he said that the approval of this patent has passed several levels of scrutiny and the final decision hasn't been only his. Of course, I have no intention of harming anybody at the patent office while recognizing that we're all humans and mistakes are made. This is a serious mistake (not to require proof positive for such an important claim of far-reaching consequences), however, and it must be corrected. The examiner insisted that I should contact Frank Fecera himself. Aside from the fact that I did that and all my attempts to speak to him were in vain (I hear only a message on his answering machine, not to say that it was very difficult to get his telephone number) I think that it's US Patent Office's duty to require a demonstration if they want to save face. This patent is on public record and no excuses with NDA's and private companies' rules hold any water this time. Steorn, Torbay, Perendev etc. may escape from such scrutiny. This one cannot. Besides, Steorn would be out of their minds to demonstrate anything before Fecera proves that his device is viable, otherwise Steorn will be infringing on Fecera's patent and Fecera will own everything Steorn demonstrates. This is the status of this important inquiry as of today.

Does anyone know how a review process of an already issued patent can be initiated in the US Patent Office by a third party?

There is a process by which an issued patent can be overturned, but this process involves courts and lawyers.  This is expensive, and normally only done by a party with a financial interest, for example by someone with a desire to market a similar product, but with no desire to pay licensing fees to the original patent holder.

I have to ask.  Why does it bother you that there is a nonworking patent on the books?  It is one of many, I assure you.  The fact that it is a perpetual motion device is perhaps the only thing of note about it.

Keep in mind that the primary reason that the patent office kicks back PMM patents and demands working demos, is that it saves time.  The examiner does not need to spend the hundred plus hours necessary to review prior art, but can simply reject it after a few minutes of scanning the application.  This is not done out of a desire to keep the patent registry "scientifically correct".  That ship has long sailed, and frankly there is no desire to allocate sufficient resources to make this happen.

Perpetuum mobile claim is dramatically out of the ordinary and I will not in any way consider it of significance less than that. The US Patent Office is the official governmental agency due to protect reason and not to protect nonsense. This goes without saying. To think it?s otherwise is to accept that USA is facing a catastrophe. I will not in any way forget that, neither any reasonable person should, no matter how tempting it is now that patents for perpetuum mobile devices have been noticed to have been granted by the USPTO seems to be to conveniently dismiss it. It is hypocritical to elevate to the skies the significance of the US Patent Office when it fits one's interests and to belittle it when interests require it. I will never agree to that, neither the American public will agree to that. I assure you that the US Patent Office will also not agree that it's regular business is to protect just anything, never mind if it's nonsense.

Therefore, instead of finding ways to explain that something obviously very significant isn?t significant, it would be much more productive to suggest ways to right this wrong within the system of the US Patent Office and not let it off the hook by going to courts. This will also be significant in that it would prevent future errors of the US Patent Office, especially of this magnitude.

What I am saying is that there IS a way to right every wrong patent.  I assume you only care about the ones still in effect, i.e. those filed 20 years ago or more recently.  So, just get a few (or more) billion dollars together and sue every patent holder who you believe holds an invalid patent.  Currently, the average cost of single patent lawsuit is $2 million, give or take.

Like I said, that's exactly what shouldn't be done because it lets US Patent Office off the hook. This proposal makes it so that USPTO can do whatever they please without any accountability and everything wrong that they do is to be righted on the outside, somewhere else, not where it was committed. It is expecially important not to let it go when such a momentuous error has been made--to grant perpetuum mobile patents without any scientific or factual backing.