Magnet Motor Recent Patent Application

[hansvonlieven]

Tell that to Jesse Mc. Queen Omnibus,

who has a US patent for a perpetual motion machine and is currently milking Australian investors at a record rate. Just the other day an investor got in contact with me since I was the one who exposed the scam on an old thread here. The poor guy is out of pocket 20,000 dollars and has nothing to show for it but empty promises. What makes it worse is that the poor bloke got all his mates into the scheme thinking they are all going to make millions.

It's an old story and one that many people would like to continue.

Hans von Lieven

[Pirate88179]

This is crazy.  It is not perpetual motion but it runs on its own.  What the heck does that mean? I think the USPO should require working models, as they do for other devices, on things such as this.  If he has really done it, fine, prove it and get the patent.  If it is just another idea that "might" work, sorry...patent denied.  Just my opinion.  I have even less faith in the USPO today than I had yesterday, and I didn't think that was possible.  Open source is the only way to go, there is no doubt.

Bill

[Pirate88179]

Opps.... I almost forgot.

Thanks Hans for bringing this to our attention.

Bill

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Bill,

According to a guy who is very close to the US patent office the trick is to use language that does not set off any warning bells in the patent office. I posted his letter to me in the Jesse Mc Queen thread in case you are interested,

From the correspondence with him I gathered that his wife is one of the examiners, though he never actually said this.

It would appear that most of the work examiners do is done with computer searches and looking for the right legal format in the applications. If certain keywords appear that are a no-no they demand proof of some sort, if not, the thing just goes through.

Hans von Lieven

[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.

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.

@shruggedatlas,

I think USPTO has the mother of all motivations to deny a patent on something new but not useful it has granted a patent by mistake. Because in this way USPTO has violated US Patent Law which requires that patents be granted only for new as well as useful devices, methods etc. This is a threat to the whole system, as any violation of the law which isn?t taken care of is.

As for the owner, he will be in no position to present evidence that a motor he?s granted paten for, working without spending of energy of any kind, isn?t a perpetuum mobile. If he, however, presents a model of a working motor which doesn?t spend energy of any kind, then Science must change. This is a cut and dry case, a yes or no situation, and no minor distinctions can ever be presented.