Magnet Motor Recent Patent Application

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

Something for you to look at, just found its way to my desk.

Hans von Lieven

[Thaelin]

   Another interesting twist to the old story. Something to ponder tho. See how long before they deny it as a perpetual.

thaelin

[shruggedatlas]

See how long before they deny it as a perpetual.
thaelin

Just bring along a working model, and they will not deny anything! 

[Omnibus]

See how long before they deny it as a perpetual.
thaelin

Just bring along a working model, and they will not deny anything! 

Back to our old discussion. Did Frank Fecera bring a working model and that was the reason to be granted a patent for a perpetuum mobile? No. I verified it with the examiners of his patent. Now, the opposite has to occur. US Patent Office, not third party through the court system, must require that all the patentees who have perpetuum mobile patents granted by the USPTO bring working models, otherwise their patents will be revoked.

[shruggedatlas]

See how long before they deny it as a perpetual.
thaelin

Just bring along a working model, and they will not deny anything! 

Back to our old discussion. Did Frank Fecera bring a working model and that was the reason to be granted a patent for a perpetuum mobile? No. I verified it with the examiners of his patent. Now, the opposite has to occur. US Patent Office, not third party through the court system, must require that all the patentees who have perpetuum mobile patents granted by the USPTO bring working models, otherwise their patents will be revoked.

The USPTO, as overworked as it is, has no motivation, but more importantly, no procedure to reexamine granted patents on its own.  Someone must file a request for reexamination and then present evidence to persuade the USPTO to invalidate the patent in question.  This is not as costly as litigation, but still costly.  So there is your problem.  Generally, nonworking inventions sit on the books unchallenged, because they present no threat to others, and hence there is no ecomonic motivation to have them reexamined.

As far as winning such an action, you were right in your original position that a perpetual motion invention can be denied on the basis of utility.  Generally, utility is by far the easiest bar to meet when filing a patent, as compared with originality and non-obviousness, and outside of PPMs, I have never heard of a patent application denied on the basis of utility, but in this case, it is uniquely useful.  So you should have a good reexamination case against any PPM invention.  However, do expect the patent owner to present evidence as to why the invention is not a perpetual motion device.  Patent lawyers are notoriously devious in drawing minor distinctions to win their case.