Jesse McQueen's Power Generator

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

I just received a letter that I would like to share with you. The author is obviously very familiar with the inner workings of the US patent office and the various techniques employed by patent lawyers. I am leaving personal details of the writer out for obvious reasons, suffice it to say that it was not sent to me anonymously.

Conspiracy? Not necessarily! I feel that it is indicative of the
problems within the Patent Office. While this is a short, not
complicated application, the examiners are under extreme pressure to
examine x number of patents/week. Rumor has it that they sometimes pass
stuff that shouldn?t be passed just to keep their quotas up as the
quotas are what determines their raises, etc. If they can make their
quotas, get their raises on time, and last 5 years, they can leave the
patent office with a law degree paid for by the government, and go to
work for the companies that are submitting patents. Patent attorney?s
are the highest paid attorneys.

That final paragraph is something the lawyers put in to try and ?patent
the world?. What is actually prosecuted is their list of claims. The
examiner will take each claim in turn and try to find a prior art
against that claim. They try to use no more than 2 prior arts to throw
out the patent application. This prevents the applicant claiming that
they took the claims out of context. General and vague, to be sure. That
is why there are so many lawyers in court over patent infringements.
But, the vagueness can work against them as well as being too general
and vague can cause the judge to throw it out.

What I?ve been seeing is applications that demonstrate something that
already exists, but with different terms/synonyms and wording designed
to confuse the examiner. This makes it extremely difficult to find prior
art via keyword searches. You might see one app with 5 or 10 page long
claims, another with 100 claims, I have seen some over 300 pages long.
This does help them get their patent accepted, but it is a double edged
sword. It makes it harder for the patent examiner to protect their
patent against the next application. But, it was worded by a lawyer
whose job is to get the application accepted. Defending it will fall to
another lawyer or will represent another source of income for the firm
that wrote the app. The ultimate victim is the guy who invented it.

There is even a new group of applicants the examiners call Trolls. They
use computer programs to take old patents, reword them, and submit them.
They might submit the same patent, in various forms 6 or more times.
Some have hundreds of patent applications in all fields, some of which
the inventor can have no personal knowledge of.

The examiners are currently pushing for a recognized dictionary of terms
as set forth by some standards agency, such as IEEE, ACM, or others.
Patents that coin new terms for common jobs could be ejected for not
conforming. A new ruling coming into effect limits the number of claims.
Little is known by the examiners yet of exactly what the new wording
will be. The fear is it will result in long claims. The problem with
changes to the patent system is it is controlled by Congress, who
responds to pacs. Another change in the coming is for all applications
to be public and available for public comment prior to their enactment.
This is being fought by smaller companies as they are afraid of their
ideas being revealed.

Finally, the laws of energy can?t be changed. The original writer is
correct in that about 70% efficiency is the best such an arrangement can
achieve. The loss is due to heat and friction. So, using the generator
to produce usable power for distribution and also feeding back into the
system to keep it going is impossible. It wouldn?t even work shoving all
the power back to sustain the system, all due to that 30% loss. As a
side note, the most efficient electrical device is the transformer.

In summation, my initial reading of the patent leads me to believe it
shouldn?t have been granted. But, all hope is not lost. Future
applications will have the opportunity to be worded such that they can
be granted, or they can go to earlier patents, or even published work,
and show in court that this application is bogus. As always, the true
cost of a patent is not getting it, but defending it.

Make of this what you will
Hans von Lieven

[jmac]

He has not seen complete detail of my patent. There are still thinks about it left to be
revealed. The losses of power are accounted for. These will be a lot of comment made but the best ones will come very soon with the release of prototype.   

[jmac]

When getting in a bull fight make sure you are not the bull.

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Jesse and all,

I wasn't aware that I was in a bull fight, all I am saying is that so far I have not seen anything that gives me reason to believe that there is something solid in your project. You are asking us to take your ideas on faith alone. Sorry, science does not ( or at least should not ) work that way.

If you want us to accept that you are tapping into some sort of outside energy, give us at least an indication just how that is achieved.

Not out for a fight, simply trying to clarify matters.

Hans von Lieven

[FAR]

Interesting to note that the discovered laws were discovered at a time when people knew less about what was.

Also, it's interesting that someone in a patent office would spend such effort writing such a thing. Names should be provided, otherwise wouldn't one be called a possible engineer of patent office reply's?