After reading the decision of the patent examiner, my impression is that
the patent was rejected for good reason. The rejection argument is not
that the theory is wrong but that Mills is trying to patent a theory and
its application to calculating electron states. This would be like
having a patent for using the Laws of Thermodynamics to calculate
reaction energies. Imagine having to pay a fee to the patent holder
each time a person attempted to use the patented methods. It is my
understanding that a theory can not be patented. Why do people keep
trying? Patents are granted when a theory is reduced to practice in the
form of a working device. When is Mills going to have a working device?
Ed
OrionWorks wrote:
For those who have a propensity towards understanding lawyer-speak.
Jones? Mr. Carrell?
http://lawbites.com/blacklight-power-sci-fi-science-rejected-by-uk-ipo/
http://tinyurl.com/5wwbvp
and
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/p-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/076/08
http://tinyurl.com/439trx
There is a 13 page PDF document that can be downloaded from the UK IPO
that describes the reasoning behind rejecting Blacklight's attempts.
What I'd like to know is whether UK IPO's final decision was due to a
difference in scientific opinion or whether other factors may have
been involved.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
