Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals rejecting claims for a â€œMethod and Apparatus for Accumulating and Transforming Ether Electric Energy.â€ The claims were rejected for lack of utility as a result of inoperativeness. The court, noting that the specification was â€œnot comprehensibleâ€ and did not conform to any known scientific or engineering principle, affirmed the rejection. The court wrote that for an alleged invention to be patentable, it must be â€œuseful, and . . . must appear capable of doing the things claimed in order to be a device of practical utility.â€ The court further noted that â€œthe rule of doubt may only be applied in favor of an applicant where the doubt is a reasonable one, that is, one founded in reason and engendered by testing the alleged invention by known scientific laws and principles.â€ Stating that there must be â€œdefiniteness,â€ rather than a mere possibility of usefulness, the court prohibited the patenting of theories and â€œintellectual speculations embodied in devices incapable of scientific analysis.â€ Thus, the court held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the utility of the invention.
Excerpts and Summaries
Thursday 28 of August, 2008 22:46:13 GMT by Unknown
Friday 05 of September, 2008 20:04:39 GMT by Unknown