IN THE CANADIAN PATENT OFFICE
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
Patent application number 496,903, having been rejected under
Subsection 47(2) of the Patent Regulations, the Applicant asked
that the Final Action of the Examiner be reviewed. The rejection
has consequently been considered by the Patent Appeal Board and
by the Commissioner of Patents. The findings of the Board and the
ruling of the Commissioner are as follows:
Applicant
Mr. William R. Cruikshank
Halifax YMCA
1565 South Pk. St., #313
Halifax, Nova Scotia
B3J 3H1
This decision deals with the Applicant's request for a review by
the Commissioner of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action on
application number 496,903 (Class 310-63) filed on December 5,
1985 and entitled "Magnetic Force Device". The inventor, William
R. Cruikshank, prepared, filed and prosecuted his own application
without the assistance of a registered patent agent. In response
to the Examiner's request for a working model of the invention
Mr. Cruikshank filed a small paper model of one of the
embodiments of his device.
The application relates to a device for lifting and propelling
machines including aircraft, spacecraft, submarines, ships, land
vehicles and rail guided machines. The device purports to use the
magnetic attractive force between magnets of opposite polarity to
generate thrust.
The application contains twelve drawings of which Figure 1 shows
a cross section of an embodiment of the device which generates
thrust in one direction. Figure 4 shows an embodiment of the
device which generates thrust in two directions and Figure 6
shows an embodiment which allegedly generates thrust in four
directions.
The alleged invention is best illustrated by Figure 1 wherein the
poles of upper magnet 1 and the poles of lower magnet 2 are
separated by wedge shaped gaps. The upper magnet is attached to a
beam 1D and the lower magnet is attached to beam 2D with the
lower magnet being an electromagnet. While not specifically shown
in Figure 6 it is apparent that beams 1D and 2D are held in a
fixed relationship to each other. Figure 1 is reproduced below:
<IMG>
The application contains twenty-two claims and independent claims
1 and 22 read as follows :
(1) A machine in which one or more magnetic force devices each
comprising two or more magnets separated from each other by two or more
wedge shaped gaps with adjacent poles of the two or more magnets alternating
in polarity across the gaps, the magnets fastened to one or more supporting
beams, with one or more of the magnets an electromagnet and with magnetic
pole faces of the magnets oriented relative to the axis of the device to produce
a force, when the one or more electromagnets is energized, in one or more
directions along one or more of the principal axis of the machine.
(22) A machine in which a power and control system for propelling and
controlling machines in translational and rotational motion along one or more
axis comprising: steering and control in the horizontal plane; elevation,
banking and level control; height and hover control; acceleration control; speed
control; motor control for one or more direct current motor-generator sets;
magnetic force devices arranged in the vehicle in one or more groups and
sections to produce force along the principal axis in which the directional
controls are inter-locked with the acceleration and speed controls in multiple
directions using feedback and with feedback from the various controls to the
motor-generator set controls and with operator and other extraneous inputs
from associated equipment.
The Examiner issued a Final Action on March 10, 1992 refusing all
of the claims in the application and the application itself. The
grounds for refusal were threefold, firstly for lack of invention
in view of cited references and in view of the common knowledge
of magnetic forces as shown in several text book references,
secondly for lack of utility and thirdly for being indefinite.
In the Final Action the following references were cited:
Unites States Patents
4,259,908 April 7, 1981 Feistkorn et al
3,842,748 October 22, 1974 Schwarzler et al
Text Books
Principles of Electricity,
Page and Adams
Van Nostrand, 1949, pages 116-117
Elements of Electrical Engineering
Cook and Carr
John Wiley, 1947, pages 28-29
Principles of Electrical Engineering
Timbie et al
John Wiley, 1951, pages 328-330
In rejecting the claims, as well as the application, the Examiner
stated (in part) that:
Claims 1 to 22 as well as the remainder of the application are rejected far lack
of invention in view of the patents to Feistkorn et al, Schwarzler et al and
common knowledge of magnetic forces as shown in the three reference books.
In response to the last examiner's report the applicant states in his letter dated
April 13, 1989 that his invention requires an exact geometric design for the
magnets combined with an exact geometric arrangement of one magnet relative
to another. The invention is in the geometry of the design and involves a new
type of magnetic levitation system.
................
The "geometric design" of the applicant is not an improvement over the prior
art because this "geometric design" increases the air gap between the poles of
facing magnets and therefore increases the magnetic flux leakage. In figure 1
of the drawings, the facing magnet poles N and S have non-parallel surfaces.
As disclosed by Page and Adams, the magnetic force between two poles of a
magnet is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two
poles. Timbie et al disclose that in a magnetic circuit containing air gaps, the
greater part of the magnetomotive force is consumed by the gap. Contrary to
these well established principles in magnetic systems design and the well
known law of physics stated above, the applicant's magnets configuration will
create a large leakage flux because of the great distance D2 (figure 1) between
the upper portions of the magnet poles N and S. This is the reason why the air
gap between the poles of facing magnets is usually kept as small as possible to
obtain the maximum magnetic force between these two parts.
The disclosure is further rejected under Section 34(1) of the Patent Act for
being indefinite. The application contains numerous ambiguous statements.
For example on page 4 it is stated that the upper magnet is fastened to a beam
1D and that the lower magnet is fastened to a beam 2D and that there is no
relative movement between beams 1D and 2D, whereas on page 1 it is stated
that the magnetic force device is used for lifting and propelling machines
including aircraft, spacecraft, land vehicles and on page 10 the device can
hover at any altitude including above the atmosphere (deep space).
The applicant at pages 1 and 10 of the disclosure states that the invention could
be used to hover at any altitude including above the atmosphere (deep space).
This is contrary to basic principles of magnetic levitation, as shown above,
where the gap between two facing poles is kept very small. The application is
therefore rejected under Section 2 of the Patent Act as unworkable (lack of
utility) because it will not produce the intended result (hover in deep space).
In reviewing the references that were cited during the
prosecution of this application, the Board notes that the text
books relate to elementary principles of electricity and
magnetism. These texts appear to have been cited merely to
provide background information and are not directly related to
the Applicant's device. As such they were not analyzed in detail
by the Board.
United States patents 4,259,908 and 3,842,748 are each directed
to a magnetic suspension system for vehicles which comprises a U-
shaped electromagnet attached to the vehicle, the poles of which
extend towards another magnet which is attached to a support.
There is a narrow gap between the adjacent poles, with the faces
of the adjacent poles being flat and parallel to each other. In
one embodiment, shown in Figure 3 of patent 3,842,748, there is a
wedge shaped gap between the poles of the adjacent magnets. The
magnets move with respect to each other as the vehicle moves with
respect to the support.
The Board is of the opinion that the cited references each show
all of the individual elements claimed in claim 1 of the instant
application. However, the applicant has emphasized one
fundamental difference between his device and the prior art. In
the references, the magnets move with respect to each other while
in Applicant's device, the magnets remain stationary with respect
to each other. Because the devices shown in the prior art are
directed specifically to transportation systems where relative
movement between the magnets is essential, indeed the entire
reason for the devices, it is the Applicant's argument that it
would not be obvious to modify the prior art devices in such a
way as to prevent the magnets from moving relative to each other.
In considering the matter the Board accepts Applicant's argument
that the two cited United States patents are directed to
inventions different from the alleged invention disclosed by the
Applicant. It is the Applicant's position that the two magnets
(shown in Figure 1 for example) are an unitary device where the
beams 1D and 2D are integral parts of the whole device.
Therefore the Board concludes that Applicant's device differs
from the prior art devices cited by the Examiner.
The Board will now deal with the Examiner's refusal of the
application on the grounds of lack of utility. Section 2 of the
Patent Act sets out the requirement that, in order to be
patentable, an invention must exhibit utility. In the Exchequer
Court decision in Mineral Separation v Noranda Mines Ltd.,
(1947), Ex. C.R. 306, Thorson P. stated, at page 316, that:
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
specifications, to make the same successful use of the invention as the inventor
could at the time of his application. The description must be correct; this
means that it must be both clear and accurate.
In its basic form (Figure 1), the device-claimed in claim 1
consists of two magnets, each of which is bolted to a beam with
other embodiments having additional magnet pairs. These pairs of
magnets are oriented at different angles to each other in order
to generate forces which are alleged to act in a variety of
different directions.
The Applicant has made it clear throughout the prosecution of the
application that there is no relative movement between the beams
so, as a consequence, there can be no relative movement between
the magnets. The Applicant claims that the device can be used as
a support device for lifting and propelling machines of all
sorts. However, there is no explanation of how the lift device
interacts with the machine which is to be lifted or propelled.
Is the lift device part of the machine or is it a separate
mechanism? The Applicant has devoted a considerable amount of
the disclosure to equations which can be used to calculate many
of the design parameters such as size of the magnets, the amount
of power required etc. but has not given any indication of the
practical application of the device. It would appear to the Board
that the Applicant is confusing the concept of magnetic force
with thrust, i.e. the attractive force between two magnets of
differing polarity and the concept of a thrust which could propel
a vehicle.
A worker in this field of technology should be able to make use
of the invention by making use of the information given in the
disclosure of the application. However, the information set forth
in the disclosure of the application does not satisfy this
requirement. Before attempting to put the alleged invention into
operation, a worker skilled in the field of transportation would
first have to discover how to construct an operable embodiment of
the Applicant's device. This is not merely a question of some
minor detail taut lies at the very heart of what the Applicant
feels he has invented.
It is the Board's opinion that the application does not set forth
in clear and concise terms how an operable embodiment of the
Applicant's device could be constructed and thus fails to meet
the requirements of Section 34 of the Patent Act.
The Board feels that this lack of explanation of the practical
mode of operation of the lift device may have contributed to the
Examiner's difficulty in understanding what the Applicant feels
he has invented and has resulted in the refusal of the
application on the grounds of ambiguity. This is the case in
claim 1. The Applicant has defined the elements of the device
but is ambiguous as to how in the device the magnetic force
produced along the principal axis of the machine translates into
physical motion. A similar difficulty arises with claim 22.
Reference is made to systems for controlling the vehicle's
movement utilizing the magnetic forces produced along the
principal axis (for example). The claim is ambiguous and
indefinite since there is no indication of how the magnetic force
between two magnets fixed in positions relative to one another
generates the thrust needed to propel a vehicle. It is for these
reasons that the Board agrees with the Examiner's assessment that
the application is indefinite.
In conclusion the Board recommends that the rejection of all of
the claims for lack of novelty over the cited prior art not be
supported but that the application be refused for failing to
disclose an operable invention and for failing to meet the
requirements of Section 34 of the Patent Act.
P. J. Davies M. Wilson
Chairman Member
I concur with the findings and the recommendation of the Patent
Appeal Board. Accordingly, I refuse to grant a patent on the
application. Under Section 41 of the Patent Act, the Applicant
has six months within which to appeal my decision to the Federal
Court of Canada.
M. Leesti
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 30th day of November 1994
1995
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Between:
WILLIAM RALPH CRUIKSHANK,
Plaintiff.
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND
THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND
THE PATENT APPEAL BOARD
Defendants.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Files on the 29th day of May , 1995.
Take notice that an Appeal is hereby filed in the Federal Court
of Canada under Section 41 of the Patent Act appealing the Decision
of November 30th, 1994 of the Commissioner of Patents and Patent
Appeal Board rejecting Application No. 496,903.
The Appellant proposes that the Appeal be heard at Halifax or be
disposed of by Notice of lotion in writing under Rules 324-325.
Dated at Halifax, in them County of Halifax, Province of Nova
Scotia, the 29th day of May , 1995.
William R. Cruikshank
Appellant
Address: 1565 South Park St., Rm.313,
Halifax, Nova Scotia,
B3J 3H1.
1995
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
between:
William Ralph Cruikshank,
Plaintiff.
and
Her Majesty The Queen and
The Commissioner of Patents and
The Patent Appeal Board
Defendants.
INDORSEMENT
Notice to the Defendants.
You are required to take cognizance of the within Notice of
Appeal and make opposition thereto in accordance with its terms
and the appropriate provision of the Rules of this Court.
If you fail to do so, you will be subject to have such
judgment given as the Court may think just on the Appellant's
own showing.
Note: (1)Copies of the Rules of Court, information concerning
the local offices of the Court, and other necessary
information may be obtined on application to the Registry
of this Court at Ottawa(telephone 613-992-4238)or at
any local office thereof.
(2)This Notice of Appeal is filed by William R. Cruikshank
of Halifax, Nova Scotia Plaintiff.