COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
Sections: 2, 28, 36 and 40 - Perpetual Motion
Applicant's three applications describe devices operable without a source
of external power This theoretical description is not supported by any
documentation and the model requested during the prosecution of applications
277,822 (C.D. 583) and 309,708 (C.D. 581) was not supplied.
Final Action: Affirmed
***********************
Patent application 247,896 (Cl. 322-35), was filed on December 14, 1976
for an invention entitled "Self Energizing Power Amplifier." The inventor
is Konrad A. Otta. The Examiner in charge of the application took a
Final Action on November 9, 1978 refusing to allow it to proceed to patent.
There are three applications filed by this Applicant which have been rejected
under Section 46 of the patent Act. While there is a common relationship
among them, each has been reviewed separately.
The subject matter of this application is a source of steam generated power
in which steam produced in a boiler is used to drive a turbine. A series of
four stages are indicated in the disclosure which is referred to as a
Self Energizing Power Amplifier. Claim 1 is illustrative.
Using steam generated in a boiler to drive a turbine, using
about 5% of the turbine's torque to operate an alternator whose
output perpetuates the boiler's steam generation; alternatively:
using steam generated in a boiler to drive a turbine which in
turn drives a generator whose some 5% of output is applied to
the boiler's electric heating element thereby perpetuating the
boiler's steam generation.
It is thus evident that what is claimed is a form of perpetual motion device in
which part of the energy produced by the generator is the sole energy source
to run the generator.
In the Final Action the Examiner refused the application because it is
inoperable in a patent sense, lacks utility, and is not "directed to patentable
subject matter in view of the definition of invention in Section 2 of the
Patent Act." He states lies reasons (in part) a, follows:
Applicant discloses two embodiments. In the first embodiment
batteries provide 3-4KW to the heater of a boiler. The steam
pressure drives a turbine of 500HP (373KW). Part of the torque
of the turbine is used to drive an alternator to provide 3-4 KW
which is applied to the heater of the boiler while the batteries
are switched off. The remaining output of the turbine (369-370
KW) is applied to a generator.
In the second embodiment an external power source drives a first
generator. The output of the generator is applied to the heater
which operates a second generator larger than the first. Part of
the output of the second generator is applied to the heater of the
first boiler while the external power source is shut off thereby
establishing self energization.
Both of these embodiments are perpetual motion devices which
violate the laws of physics, namely the Law of Conservation of
Energy. In the first embodiment, for example, the boiler pro-
vides 3-4KW to the turbine while the turbine produces an output
of 373KW. Thus 370KW is created ex nihilo contrary to
the Law of Conservation of Energy. With respect to perpetual
motion the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology
states that perpetual motion "refers to a mechanism whose ef-
ficiency exceeds 100%. Clearly such a mechanism violates the
now firmly established principle of conservation of energy."
Thus the apparatus claimed by the applicant is inoperable and
thus lacks utility. The application is therefore rejected as
not being directed to patentable subject matter in view of the
definition of invention in Section 2 of the Patent Act.
The applicant has submitted six letters in response to the Final Action, While
these letters discuss various facets of steam propelled vehicles they do not
contain any documented evidence to support the Applicant's power amplifying
theory.
After reviewing the disclosure we find that it does not correctly and fully
describe an invention and its operation, nor set fourth clearly the various
steps in a process, or a method of constructing, making, compounding or using
a machine. In that respect it fails to comply with Section 36 of the Patent
Act. We concur with the Examiner's view that the Applicant is claiming a
perpetual motion device which runs counter to the natural laws of conservation
of energy. Obviously a mechanical device cannot continue to operate without
a source of external power even if there were no withdrawal of energy for
other uses. We think it would be useful to quote here an article on perpetual
motion by A. Leokum which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on July 19, 1977.
The words perpetual motion by themselves just mean motion that
goes on forever. But usually when we say perpetual motion we are
referring to a very special thing.
For hundreds of years, men have had the dream of creating a mach-
ine that, once it is set in motion, would go on doing useful
work without drawing on any external source of energy. Every
machine now known has to have a source of energy,
A perpetual motion machine, however, would create its own
energy in the form of motion. Every time a complete cycle of its
operation was finished, It would give forth more energy than it
had absorbed.
Is it possible to create a perpetual motion machine? Any scientist
will tell you that the answer is no. The reason is based on what
is one of the most important laws of science, the principle of
conservation of energy.
According to this principle, energy cannot be created and cannot
be destroyed in nature. Energy can be transferred from one place
to another, energy can be freed or unlocked, but energy cannot
be created. This means that any machine that does work must have
a source of energy.
In the course of history, thousands of attempts have been made
to create perpetual motion machines. The first attempts were
made at a time when the law of the conservation of energy was
still unknown. A great many others were simply fakes that mere
later exposed.
The question of operability of an invention has been the subject of review
in the Courts. The Exchequer Court in Minerals Separation v. Noranda Mines Ltd..
(1947) Ex. C.R. 306, stated at page 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 w111
be able, having only the specification, to make the same success-
ful use of the invention as the inventor could at the time of his
application.
and at page 317 it was stated:
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 specificaton, to put the invention to the same successful
use as the inventor himself 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.
(Emphasis added).
A person skilled in the art would not be able to make, construct, compound
or use the alleged invention from the description found in the applicant's
specification.
What we are concerned with in this application is the amplification of energy
wherein the output exceeds the input. The test for utility of an alleged
invention depends on whether, by following the directions in the specification,
the effects which the Applicant professes to produce can be in fact reproduced.
If this is not the case, then the device lacks utility in the patent sense because
it is inoperable. See, for example, Northern Electric v. Browns Theatre (1940)
Ex. C.R. 36 at 56, wherein it is stated:
An invention to be patentable must confer on the public a
benefit. Utility as predicated of inventions means industrial
value. No patent can be granted for a worthless art or
arrangement. Here there is described and claimed something
that lacks utility because it is inoperable for the purpose
for which it was designed.
Also of interest is Raleigh Cycle v. Miller, (1946) 63 R.P.C. 113 at 140
which reads:
In other words, protection is purchased by the promise of re-
sults. It does not, and ought not to survive the proved failure
of the promise to produce the results.
In Union Carbide v. Trans-Canadian Feeds (1967) 49 CPR 27 the Court held:
I conclude that the patent is bad because the specification
claims what is not useful in a patentable sense.
In Re Le Rosair Appollo (1932) 49 RPC, the court concluded that when the theory
upon which a patent was founded was erroneous, there was no subject matter
of utility in the invention. (Emphasis added).
And lastly, as succinctly put in Wandscheer v. Sicard (1946) Ex. C.R. at p. 112,
and (1948) S.C.R. 1:
The test of utility of an invention is that it should do what it
is intended to do and that it be practically useful at the time
when the patent is issued for the purpose indicated by the patentee.
We note that in the Applicant's response dated November 14, 1978 it is stated
that the Final Action is the first action received by the applicant. We find
however that on October 5, 1978 the applicant wrote to the Commissioner
requesting that he review this application with his two other rejected applica-
tions. In a letter dated October 12, 1978 the Commissioner indicated that the
applicant could expect action on this application shortly. Therefore in order
to expedite proceedings to allow review by the Commissioner the rejection under
Section 46 of the Patent Act was made in the initial action.
We are satisfied that the Applicant has not given the promised result of
amplifying energy as described in this application. We therefore recommend
that the decision in the Final Action to refuse the application be affirmed.
G.A. Asher S.D. Kot
Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
I have reviewed the prosecution of this application and I agree with the
recommendations of the Patent Appeal Board. Accordingly, I refuse to grant
a patent on this application.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 16th, day of May, 1979