The special master went on to conclude that there was no contradictory factual evidence to rebut Newman’s claim despite the fact that the operation of the invention violated well-established scientific principles. The master stated that “here is no evidence corroborating Newman’s scientific theory.” The master also found that the evidence before the Patent Office was overwhelming and that Newman had built and tested a prototype of his invention where the output energy exceeds the external input energy. The special master reported that the results shown for the Newman device appeared to conflict with the laws of thermodynamics, and expressed skepticism concerning Newman’s theory of operation of the invention. In one proceeding at the district court level a special master was appointed to investigate. Ultimately a number of appeals were taken to courts outside the Patent Office. The patent examiner rejected the claims and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences upheld that rejection. Newman claimed a device that increases the availability of usable electrical energy. The best case to discuss whenever the issue of perpetual motion machines comes up is Newman v. The prototype will be tested thoroughly and if the output is more than the input then a perpetual motion machine has been achieved and the applicant may move forward through the patenting process. More specifically, you will need to produce the working prototype before the Patent Office is going to engage in any examination.

In the case of a perpetual motion machine the production of a working prototype is the only way the Patent Office would ever issue a claim for a device claimed as being able to produce more energy than it consumes. Ordinarily in the situation where the initial rejection was due to impossibility one would anticipate smooth sailing through novelty and non-obviousness. Upon the presentation of this evidence the utility rejection is withdrawn and the patent examiner considers the invention on its merits, moving forward to determine if the invention is novel and non-obvious. Eventually there was sufficient proof that hair re-growth methods, treatments and compounds did actually cause at least some hair to re-grow. In the utility scenario an examiner would reject a claim and then it would be up to the applicant to produce sufficient proof that the invention does actually work. When a patent examiner issues a rejection, including a utility rejection, the burden shifts to the applicant to demonstrate entitlement to the claim.

For example, utility rejections were once common with respect to hair re-growth methods and treatments.

The rejection provided by the Patent Office for a claim that recites a device capable of producing more energy than it consumes is a utility rejection, which is based on the belief that an invention cannot have utility if it does not work.īut why do we need law pertaining to things that science says are impossible? Why do we need law pertaining to a perpetual motion machine? Those are two very different questions.įirst, it needs to be noted that so-called impossibility rejections have been issued in the past relative to inventions previously thought to be impossible and later proved to be possible. Such a machine is characterized as a perpetual motion machine and when claimed as such it is ordinarily and routinely rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The laws of physics and nature tell us that it is impossible for a machine to produce more energy than it consumes, which creates a very real impediment to obtaining a patent. I didn’t want to go off on what would have been a lengthy tangent, but I knew as I was typing that paragraph I would circle back and fill in the blanks regarding the law as it pertains to perpetual motion machines. This is true except in the scenario of a perpetual motion machine, which I acknowledged in the article. In the article I talked about the fact that you do not need to have a prototype, but rather you need to be able to describe your invention with enough detail so that others will be able to understand what you have invented. Over the weekend I wrote an article titled Turning Your Idea into an Invention.

Perpetual motion machine