Milton Edgar Anderson
[2008] APO 19
•11 August 2008
ABSTRACTS OF DECISIONS
DECISION OF A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
Application : No. 2003208113 in the name of Milton Edgar Anderson
Title: Controllable Fusion
Action: Examiner’s objections
Decision: Issued: 11 August 2008
Abstract
The application is unconventional and relates to “the new science of subtronics” and “a new law of electric induction”. In this regard the applicant indicates that the inventive concept is the “revelation and utilisation of an antimatter voltage force that stems from the discovery of electrosubtronic fields and culminated in the new science of subtronics”.
Held that the invention claimed is a scientific theory or discovery of the laws of science without a specific practical and useful application and that, if a specific application were claimed, such an invention is not fully described. The claimed invention is therefore not a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies as required by section 18(1)(a) and does not comply with section 40.
Since it is apparent that no allowable amendment could overcome these grounds of objection, the application was refused.
PATENTS ACT 1990
DECISION OF A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
Re:Patent Application No. 2003208113 by Milton Edgar Anderson, and examiners objections thereto.
BACKGROUND
The present application was filed on 4 July 2003 and claims priority from provisional application 2002950579 which was filed on 5 August 2002.
A first examination report in relation to the application issued on 20 June 2007. In that report, the examiner objected inter alia that the claims did not define any invention and that the application did not relate to a manner of manufacture in that it did not involve “a concrete, tangible physical or observable effect”. Despite the applicant making numerous submissions, no substantive amendment of the complete specification has been proposed and the substance of the nine subsequent examiner’s reports has been, in effect, the same as the first.
In light of these circumstances the applicant has on a number of occasions been offered an opportunity to be heard, the latest being in a letter of a delegate of the Commissioner dated 10 June 2008. The applicant did not respond directly to that invitation but has made a number of submissions subsequently which I will consider together with others filed during examination.
SPECIFICATION
The content of the present specification is unconventional and sets out aspects of what the applicant describes as the “new science of subtronics” and apparently at least one application of that “science” described as an “automatic traction motor”. I admit that the concepts referred to are largely unintelligible to me however it appears, in the applicant’s view, that the inventive concept is the “revelation and utilisation of an antimatter voltage force that stems from the discovery of electrosubtronic fields and culminated in the new science of subtronics”.
In relation to the “automatic traction motor” there is a short section of the description on page two which suggests the modification of a conventional repulsion start induction motor “to form a four pole series connected motor that can then be operated on DC” with, it is said, a quadruple increase in horsepower. The explanation of how this effect is achieved and its relation to “antimatter voltage force” is however also unclear to me. Other parts of the specification concern a range of theoretical matters apparently relating the applicant’s concept of subtronics including an experimental set up including a vehicle spark coil, spaced brass rods, a plastic drinking straw and an oscilloscope which is said to confirm the discovery of the neutrino atom.
There are six claims in the specification. I note that the applicant requested that line 5 of claim 1 be amended to correct an error so that it reads “the existence of a nonmaterial or spiritual DNA” but did not respond to the examiners request that the amendment be formally proposed in the way required by the Patents Act:
1. The complete absence of any precedent or any assistance whatever from the scientific fraternity following the early disclosure of the existence of electrosubtronic fields that started with a letter to the CSIRO in Australia dated 23rd February 1999 has culminated in the discovery of the neutrino atom by splitting the electron thus conclusively confirming the existence of a nonmaterial of spiritual DNA through which God has conveyed the information to mankind that has enabled me to disclose new laws of electric induction that have been hidden from science for over 200 years due to a misinterpretation of the electrophorus invented by Volta in 1775 thus isolating the conceptual core of quantum theory in placing God as the principle arbitrator in the new science of subtronics that will guide mankind into the next millennium in establishing that God created the universe.
2. A practical application of the newly discovered laws of electric induction of claim 1 in providing the highly efficient automatic traction motor or ATM described in the Provisional Patent Specification.
3. Any new application of the new laws of electric induction claimed in claim 2.
4. Any improvement to an existing electromagnetic device or motor by employing the new laws of electric induction claimed in claims 1, 2 and 3.
5. Any new communication method derived from the new laws of electric induction of claim 1.
6. Any new computer or other device attributable to the disclosure of the neutrino atom and/or antimatter radiation.
DECISION
While expressed in an unconventional way, it appears that what is intended to be claimed is the discovery of “a new law of electric induction” or “the new science of subtronics” and, very broadly, the application of that “law”. I do not intend to make any judgement on the merit or validity of the applicant’s scientific theories however, from the specification, the applicant’s own submissions and my own knowledge of the field I would conclude that the applicant’s views on these matters are unlikely to be shared by many if any of the persons skilled in the relevant arts and particularly theoretical physicists or electrical engineers working in the field of motor design. It would also seem the case that in describing a new science or “law” the description falls far short of enabling those persons to understand the discovery said to be made or any application of it. Certainly the type of experiment referred to in the description or the submissions is not capable of altering that situation and similarly since the issue here is not one of utility I do not believe anything would be gained from attending the demonstration offered by the applicant.
There are limits to the subject matter for which a patent can be granted aside from the requirement that a claimed invention be novel and non-obvious. It must also be a manner of manufacture. This term derives from the Statute of Monopolies of 1623 and reflects a balance between those activities and developments to which society wishes to encourage by the grant of a patent and those to which granting patent rights is considered inappropriate. These notions have evolved over time however certain fields have always been excluded including expressions of human intellectual activity relating to literature, music and other of the fine arts. More relevantly to the current situation, discoveries of the laws of nature or science, scientific theories, ideas, mere schemes and plans and mathematical algorithms per se have also been regarded as not exhibiting the requirements of a manner of manufacture. This does not mean those activities are not important but simply do not reflect the fields of human endeavour for which a patent should be granted. Of course an application of a law or principle of science producing a particular practical and useful result is a different matter and is likely to fall within the scope of patentable subject matter.
In this regard the High Court in the NRDC case, 102 CLR 252, cited with approval the view expressed by Lindley LJ in Lane Fox v Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Company (1892) 3 Ch. 424 at 428,429:
".....a man who discovers that a known machine (his Lordship might equally have said a known substance) can produce effects which no one before him knew could be produced by it has made a discovery, but has not made a patentable invention unless he so uses his knowledge and ingenuity as to produce either a new and useful thing or result, or a new and useful method of producing an old thing or result."
(See also Hayasibara Co.'s Patent, (1977) FSR 582 at 590), and Reynolds v Herbert Smith (1903) 20 RPC 123 at 126.)
Similarly it has been said that "intellectual conceptions become patentable only to the extent that they have been embodied in technical applications", see CCOM v Jiejing Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1168.
In the present circumstances, while a new “law” of electric induction may be described and referred to in the claims, in my opinion no specific practical and useful application of that law is claimed or is claimed only in a speculative way. I furthermore do not find anything in the specification as a whole that if claimed might address this requirement including features of the “automatic traction motor” which appears to be at one level entirely conventional even if produced by the modification of another conventional electrical motor type. If I am wrong in this and a specific application of the new “law” in an electric motor could be claimed I would consider in any event that the application must fail because that invention is not fully described and particularly that the disclosure would not enable a skilled addressee of the specification to produce something falling within each claim without new invention or undue experimentation.
As a result I consider that there are grounds of objection to the request and complete specification that cannot be rectified by an allowable amendment and consequently I will refuse the application.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has described a new theory or law of science and has generally claimed any application of that law. What however is required for the grant of a patent is a specific practical and useful application of those laws and a description or teaching of it that would allow an ordinary person skilled in the art to put it into effect. I am therefore satisfied that there are lawful grounds of objection to the patent request and complete specification which no allowable amendment of the specification could address. Consequently I refuse the request and specification under section 49(2) of the Act.
For the benefit of the applicant who is unrepresented, I would further point out that this is a final determination and that examination of the application has ended. However pursuant to section 51 of the Act the applicant may appeal my decision to the Federal Court of Australia. Such an appeal is governed by the rules and procedure of the Court and must be filed within 21 days of the date of this decision, subject to any further time the Court may allow.
P Spann
Deputy Commissioner of Patents
11 August 2008
0
0
0