COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OPERABILITY: Section 36 and 40; Perpetual Motion Device
Refused.
An application for a machine for perpetual motion was refused
under Section 36 as being inoperative and for failure to provide
an adequate description of the invention. Failure to provide a
working model called for under Section 40 was also cited. The
decision reflects the fact that the applicant was a private
individual not versed on patent law and practice.
FINAL ACTION: Affirmed.
********************
On July 18, 1973, Mr.Elis A. Kutvonen filed in the Patent Office an
application for patent for an invention which he calls "Perpetuum
Mobile." It was given serial number 176,786, and classified in
Class 60/30. The invention relates to a perpetual motion machine
which operates pneumatically. The examiner refused the machine as
being inoperable, and eventually rejected the application. The appli-
cant then requested a review of the rejection, and a Hearing before
the Patent Appeal Board. In order that it might better understand
the invention, the Board asked Mr. Kutvonen to supply a working model
of the invention. This requirement was made under Section 40 of the
Patent Act.
.
The Hearing took place on May 21, 1975, at which time Mr. Kutvonen
argued his case, though he declined to demonstrate a model of his in-
vention. He obviously is a very sincere and religious person, with
a manifest desire to serve humanity. If his machine did operate as
claimed it would, of course, be of tremendous benefit to mankind in
providing its energy needs, and solving the current fuel crisis.
The inventor argued his case eloquently, and if he failed to convince
the Board he at least gained its sympathy.
Before a patent may be granted for an invention, it is required by the
Patent Act inter alia that the invention be operable, and that the
invention be so described in the application that others may both
understand and be able to practise the invention. When required, a
working model of the invention must also be provided by the applicant.
With reluctance the Board has come to the conclusion that the request
for a patent fails on all three grounds.
It is a well recognized scientific principle that perpetual motion is
unattainable. All machines require energy imputs both to overcome
frictional losses during their operation, and to provide energy output.
The examiner, who is a technical expert in this field, is satisfied
that the applicant has not overcome that principle, and we have seen
no evidence to disturb his findings.
The examiner has also concluded that the description of the invention
is such that it cannot be understood by technical experts in this
science. Of such an abjection the President of the Exchequer Court of
Canada has stated in Minerals Separation v. Noranda Mines (1947)
Ex. C.R. 306 at 316:
Two things must be described in the disclosures of a
specification, one being the invention, and the other
the operation or use of the invention as contemplated by
the inventor, and with respect to each the description
must be correct and full. The purpose underlying this
requirement is that when the period of monopoly has
expired the public will be able, having only the specifi-
cation, to make the same successful use of the invention
as the inventor could at the time of his application.
And at page 317:
When it is said that a specification should be so written
that after the period of monopoly has expired the public
will be able, with only the specification, to put the
invention to the same successful use as the inventor him-
self could do, it must be remembered that the public means
persons skilled in the art to which the invention relates,
for a patent specification is addressed to such persons.
We have not been able to understand how the invention works, neither
from the written description nor from the oral submission. Mr. Kutvonen
alluded at the Hearing to the hazards which exist when his invention is
used by those who do not understand it. We find no adequate description
or warning of such dangers in the disclosure, and from that must conclude
that the application fails to meet the statutory requirements which must
be met before it may be allowed. Consequently we feel further constrained
from reversing the examiner's findings that the disclosure does not pro-
vide an adequate and clear description of the invention.
The Board must recommend that the rejection of the application be affirmed.
We do this regretfully because Mr. Kutvonen holds such high hopes for
the success of his machine, and came so far, doubtlessly at considerable
expanse, to argue his case. We have, however, given him a fair hearing,
and considered his appeal most thoroughly. We hope that will be some con-
solation to him.
Mr. Kutvonen is entitled to appeal our findings and the decision of the
Commissioner of Patents to the Federal Court of Canada if he so wishes.
This, however, could be a costly process, and in this instance we fully be-
lieve it would be a frustrating exercise. Since Mr. Kutvonen asked for
guidance from the Board, we would counsel him to utilize his undoubted
talents in other endeavours.
Gordon A.Asher,
Chairman,
Patent Appeal Board.
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board, and refuse to grant
a patent for this application. If the applicant wishes to appeal to the
Federal Court of Canada, he has six months, as provided under Section 44 of
the Patent Act, within which to launch such an appeal.
Decision accordingly,
A.M.Laidlaw,
Commissioner of Patents.
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 26th. day of
May, 1975
Agent for Applicant
Mr. Elis A. Kutvonen,
Thunder Bay, Ontario.