COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
Sufficiency of Disclosure, Operative Device: Parts of the disclosure refer
to a battery driven device, and other parts discuss the device as being an
inexhaustible source of energy. The rejection was affirmed for lacking a
correct full description of the operation and for lacking adequate inform-
ation to construct a working device.
********************
Patent application 418,044 (class 310-70) was filed on December 17, 1982
for an invention entitled "Energy Releaser". The inventor is Arpad A.
Boday. The Examiner wrote a final action on July 13, 1983 refusing the
application under Section 2 of the Patent Act for being inoperable.
The alleged invention relates to the release of magneto-dynamic energy of
permanent magnets in order to win mechanical movement. The apparatus is said to
consist of a permanent-magnet armature device with controlled multi -magnet
fields in a motor.
Figure 6 of the disclosure illustrates the device as follows
<IMG>
In the Final Action the Examiner rejected the application under Section 36(1)
of the Patent Act, for insufficient disclosure, and under S.2 for lack of
utility. He stated (in part):
...
The main difficulty in examining this application is the
fact that language, expressions and terminology used, and
many ideas and opinions expressed in this application, are
so unconventional that they cannot be understood even by our
experienced examiner. Though they all have a meaning to the
inventor, many of them are meaningless to an examiner, scientist
or engineer; for instance, it is not clear what is meant by
"free from load property", "artificially induced reciprocal
permeance" or "pursuance of the oppositional potential"
(see top of page 6). It is not clear either, what is meant
by a "controlled magnet gun" and what it is shooting (see
page 4, lines 21 and 43).
It is found, therefore, that the present disclosure is quite
confusing. The drawings are of no help because they are not
properly explained and do not explain the disclosure. (See
Section 36(1) of the Patent Act.)
For the examiner, facts are more important than the language used
by the applicant in his above letters, and the only clear fact
that emerges from the study of this disclosure is that applicant
believes that he has invented a permanent magnet device which
is an "Inexhaustable Energy Source" which "does not require for
its operation supplementary shipment of natural energy incorporat-
ing fuel". (See page 7, lines 25 to 27.) This fact places-
applicant's device firmly into the class of perpetual motion devices.
It is again established that the present alleged invention is directed
to a typical perpetual motion device which, according to present know-
ledge of science and technology, is inoperable, and therefore not useful.
The present application is therefor a again rejected in view of Section 2
of the Patent Act.
...
In reply to the Final Action Applicant argued that the rejection is unjustified
and that he is entitled to a patent.
The issue before the Board is whether or not the application describes an opera-
five and useful apparatus.
Claim 1 of the application reads as follows:
Every of such magneto-dynamic energy releaser apparatus,
which is an Automatically Running Permanent-magnet Arma-
ture Device (A.R.P.A.D.) with Magnet Gun(M.G.) controlled
multi-magnet fields as an energy transducer of the permanent-
magnet's magneto-static stationary fields for magneto-dynamic
energy to winning a mechanical movement and/or a generation
of electric current, regardless of the direction and the
path of the motion, or of the kind and power of the current.
In his letter of April 21, 1983, Applicant has made several statements
that his apparatus uses an external source of energy. In part 7 for exam-
ple, he refers to figures 5 and 6 as showing a circuit that includes a
battery as the external source of energy. In part 8 Applicant mentions
three terms found on page 6 of the application in which external energy is
used, and we agree that those terms are found there. We also note in
paragraph 1 on page 6 that Applicant says the electronic circuits are not
part of the invention. This statement is reinforced by the information
appearing on figure 6 that the electronic circuits are not the object of
the invention. In part 9 Applicant explains that the motor and the energy
releaser operate when the switch is in the on position, and stops when the
switch is off. Further, in lines 26 to 28 on page 6 of the application, we
note that speed regulation or progressive rotation is said to be possible
by electronic regulation of flux control. The view is also expressed on
lines 30 to 34 that the property of the preferred embodiment is that "the
use of all materials are regenerable or reuseable, except for the ball
bearing...".
It seems from the above parts of the disclosure and his explanation that
Applicant realizes there must be a power source to regenerate energy
taken from his device. His recognition that he uses a switch to
start or stop his device, which includes a battery, strengthens the view
that an external force is needed to provide the operation of the magneto-
dynamic device from which he says he obtains energy. We derive from Applicant's
disclosure, therefore, that the output of energy from his device will
continue only so long as there is a battery. While Applicant says in lines
39 to 45 on page 7 of the disclosure that his device does not require
supplementary energy from sources such as "...water fall, coalmine, sunlight,
wind-blow etc...", he has provided information that his device includes a
battery as a source of energy.
We are unable therefore to support the rejection that the application is
directed to a perpetual motion machine in view of the above portions of the
disclosure and Applicant's arguments concerning the battery.
There are other portions of the disclosure however, which have not been
understood by the Examiner. Lacking an understandable description he re-
fused the application. We now review them.
Applicant has disclosed and argued that he has an 'Inexhaustible Energy
Source'. We do not share his view that he has an inexaustible source of
energy, because of his own explanation that he provides an external source
of energy. In our opinion it is well known that if an external energy source
drives a device it may be possible to withdraw some of that energy for useful
purposes. We are satisfied that Applicant's statements that the magnets,
per se, provide an inexhaustible source of energy, are not acceptable. Indeed,
the parts of his disclosure noted above and the arguments in his letter of
April 21, 1983, outlining the presence of an external source, negate such a
concept.
In paragraphs 2 and 4 of page 1 of the application, it is stated that the
controlled multi-magnetic fields regulate an automatically running perman-
ent magnet armature device. On page 3 lines 25 to 43, Applicant says his
invention makes possible the release of an inexhaustible source of energy
which he refers to as Magneto-Dynamic Free Energy, and at the same time he
says there are no "...lesses, no Joule-heat, nor magneto striction, etc.,
occuring which makes possible the magnetic field control without power
and energy." The above passages from pages 1 and 3, in our view, are
directly contrary to what has been disclosed by Applicant in other portions
of the disclosure, and to what he has argued in parts 7, 9 and 12 of his letter
of April 21, 1983.
On page 4 line 21 to page 5 line 18 of the application several equations
are referred to, as is a magnet gun, as well as a statement which infers
that increasing the power of the released magneto-dynamic energy is independ-
ent from the used external energy of the electronic control, and another
statement that the external energy for the electronic control takes no
part in the motive power. This portion of the disclosure does not explain
or clarify the significance of the equations nor adequately describe the
operation of the magnet gun. The two statements are also contrary to
what Applicant argues in parts 7, 9 and 12 of his letter.
We refer again to page 1 of the disclosure. On lines 21 to 26, Applicant
refers to his motor as being an "invented complex of devices... which is...
an energy transducer of the permanent-magnet's magneto-statical stationary
fields for magneto-dynamic energy...". As previously noted however, there
is a statement on figure 6 that several parts of the complex shown ...are
not object of the invention". These two passages are contradictory. They
are also vague because, from our reading of the disclosure, there is no
clear indication nor comprehensible description of the operation of the re-
maining parts which are all that is left to be considered.
We are satisfied therefore that these other portions of the description of
the operation of the device are unclear and not understandable.
In part 12 of Applicant's letter of April 21, 1983, he says that he has built
an operable and useful model of a motor having a magnet gun, and that it is
open for Patent Office inspection. He comments that its size is not accord-
ing to the Patent Rules, i.e. Rule 31(2), as it exceeds 12 inches and, it is
not possible to miniaturize it. We note that although Applicant argues that
he has built working models, and the Examiner has alluded to the fact that
Applicant may submit one, there is no model before us, nor any documented
evidence of the working of any model.
The Examiner has also rejected the application on the ground that the models
that Applicant refers to in his letter of April 21, 1983, "...cannot be con-
sidered operable because they have not been described as operable", and
then adds "Whatever is described in the disclosure is perpetual motion
which is inoperable...". While we are able to agree with the Examiner
that certain portions of the disclosure are not understandable, we also
recognize Applicant's argument that the disclosure includes a reference to
a battery operated device. However, we are not prepared to say that the
models to which Applicant refers, but which we have not seen, are not oper-
able. Likewise we are not disposed to agree with the Examiner's general
statement "Whatever is described...is perpetual motion which is inoperable...",
lacking a full discussion of all the parts which are viewed as forming such
a device.
In the Final Action, the Examiner expressed difficulty in understanding cer-
tain expressions and terminology, and found the disclosure confusing. He
considered that the drawings were not helpful because in his view, they were
not properly explained, and he directed Applicant's attention to Section
36(1) of the Patent Act. We have noted carefully Applicant's extremely
vigorous urgings and statements in his letters of April 23, 1983, and Dec-
ember 27, 1983. We are guided instead by the decision of the Exchequer Court
(now Federal Court) of Canada in Minerals Separation Noranda Mines (1947)
Ex CR 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 specification, 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 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.
We have studied the specification bearing in mind the above decision and we
have not been able to understand the alleged invention, neither from the
written description nor from the letters submitted. We find no description
in the disclosure of the manner in which the automatically running per-
manent magnet armature device is caused to be, or achieves a state of,
automatically running, nor how the permanent magnets provide an inexhaust-
ible energy source. We are not persuaded by Applicant's arguments nor by
the disclosure, drawings, and claims, that the application provides an
adequate and clear description of the operation of the apparatus. In
summary, we are satisfied the specification neither describes how Applicant's
device operates, nor provides adequate instructions to construct, make or use
a working machine, as required by Section 36(1) of the Act.
Therefore, after carefully reviewing the specification and Applicant's
arguments, and bearing in mind the direction provided by the Exchequer Court
decision, Minerals Separation v Noranda, supra, we recommend that the reject-
ion of the application be affirmed, for lacking a correct, full, description
of the device in terms which are clear and concise so that a person skilled
in the art would be unerringly directed to make, construct and use the
invention.
A. McDonough M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Chairman Assistant Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board
I have carefully reviewed the findings and the recommendation of the Patent
Appeal Board. Accordingly, I refuse to grant a patent on this application.
Applicant has six months within which to appeal my decision under the pro-
visions of Section 44 of the Patent Act.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 16th. day of August 1984
Agent for Applicant
Arpad A. Boday
30 Antrim Crescent #912
Scarborough, Ontario
M1P 4S4