Patently Obvious: Is It Woo, Or Not?

[Horatius]

We've had some patent-related discussions here before, and the last time around, there was some discussion about how hard it could be to determine if an application was "woo or not". Since then, I've come across a few weird patents, and patent applications, that I thought it might be interesting to discuss.

My plan is to present one patent or application at a time, and then have people discuss whether the ideas presented are "woo or not". And, as an additional challenge, please explain how you would demonstrate to the applicant (or the Courts) that your determination was correct.

I've been thinking about posting this thread for a few weeks now, but today I've been searching on some rather different subject matter than I usually do, and ran across a nice one I wanted to share, that will be (I think) a nice, easy intro into the topic. If things go well, I'll post more examples for us to discuss.


So, now, is it woo or not?


United States Patent Application 20030215778 (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220030215778%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20030215778&RS=DN/20030215778)

Here's a few (carefully cherry-picked :)) quotes:

At the Berkeley High Energy Bubble Chamber Laboratory, a particle and antiparticle was discovered and seen produced in empty space independent of any outside influence. The reason why this is possible is that a particle, E=mc.sup.2, and antiparticle, -E=mc.sup.2, when their Energies are added together, equals zero, conserving the law of the conservation of mass and energy, in which they annihilate back to zero when the particle and antiparticle combine again due to their opposite electrical charge. What happens when you keep the particle and antiparticle from annihilating back to zero?

The Spaceship Diagram is a simplified Interstellar Transport Vehicle Engine such that the antimatter, FIG. 19, produced, FIG. 16, is accelerated by electromagnetic means, FIG. 17, by using the matter, FIG. 20, produced, FIG. 16, as the energy source to accelerate the antimatter. This causes a Reaction, FIG. 22, in Empty Space by an equal and opposite Action, FIG. 21, causing the Spaceship to be propelled in Empty Space

The Total Energy of the System, FIG. 15, is the Energy gained by matter antimatter production and separation such that the positive matter is used for energy and to discharge the antimatter. Thus, there is actually energy gained! In other words, E.sub.p+=mc.sup.2>>E.sub.s+- E.sub.e, where E.sub.p+, FIG. 13, is the energy of the matter and E.sub.s, FIG. 12, is the Electromagnetic Separation Energy, and E.sub.e, FIG. 5, is the Electromagnetic Enticement Energy.

[drkitten]

Here's a few (carefully cherry-picked :)) quotes:

That verges on the not-fair; any paper can be made to look sensible or not by cherry-picking quotes. The first quote, for example, is a fairly mundane description of a routine event in particle physics (pair production), although not very technical (as I would expect in the writings of a patent attorney instead of a physicist). But it also doesn't say anything new; there's nothing in it about the invention or even about the inventor. The invention could have been proposed by Dick Feynman or Bozo the Clown....

The second quote marks it as pretty bonkers -- the idea of using the "matter produced to accelerate the antimatter" is straight out of Froop Loop Ville. Unless -- and here I would need to look at the full patent -- the inventor has figured out some way to make "pair production" work for energy-rich things like uranium instead of elementary particles, so that he can extract the internal energy from uranium via fission or something like that. But even in this case, the inventor would need to supply some form of energy to keep the newly produced uranium/antiuranium apart, for a net energy loss, unless he's got a cunning way around this (such as extracting the necessary energy from ambient sunlight or something).

Basically, it's woo. It's woo because it fails to understand basic scientific concepts like the nature of pair production, the difference between virtual and real particles. It violates Conservation of Energy and is therefore impossible -- or if the inventor has explicitly claimed a Conservation of Energy violation, then the examiner should demand a working model under the standard "perpetual motion machine" claim.

So I would reject on the statuatory grounds that this is an impossible patent and therefore not "useful."

[Horatius]

Well, I did say it was an easy one to start :) There's also a link to the full text provided, so you can see what else he has to say.

And I agree, this one is woo, but it's amusing woo. As you mention, the real issue becomes how to separate the particles from the antiparticles in such a manner that it takes less energy than you get back at the end of the day. He addresses that problem very briefly, and hand-waveingly:

The Electromagnetic Separation Barrier, FIG. 11, is a Theoretical Electromagnetic Field, not defined yet but will be defined when experiments are actually made, that separates the matter and antimatter produced by the enticement energy, particle, or field, FIG. 5.

[0023] The Electromagnetic Separation Energy, FIG. 12, is the Energy required to sustain the Electromagnetic Separation Barrier, FIG. 11


The really nice thing is, he goes from discovering Free Enegy to discovering How the Universe Was Created:

The name Electro-Nucleo Genesoid is due to my discovery of how God created the Universe, since the Universe has infinite energy in the form of matter! According to the Big Bang Creation Theory, the Universe was created without the existence of God. If you look at our Milky Way Galaxy, scientists already have proof of planets orbiting around each star. How can all this beautiful and organized matter form without an intelligent designer? Moreover, the probability of a complex well-ordered system generated from nothing has the probability of being so close to zero that, as mathematicians and scientist say, it is Zero. Thus, I Believe, the Big Bang is a Big Zero



This points out a common theme in patent applications: When the guy really is crazy, he usually points it out to you pretty clearly. But note, even a really crazy guy can have some aspects of his application that are based on real science.

I'll wait for a few more comments before posting another, more difficult example, just to see how much interest there is....

[ponderingturtle]

That verges on the not-fair; any paper can be made to look sensible or not by cherry-picking quotes. The first quote, for example, is a fairly mundane description of a routine event in particle physics (pair production), although not very technical (as I would expect in the writings of a patent attorney instead of a physicist). But it also doesn't say anything new; there's nothing in it about the invention or even about the inventor. The invention could have been proposed by Dick Feynman or Bozo the Clown....


Not quite, normal pair production would give the anti particle postive not negative energy. It might relate to virtual particals related to black holes and why they evaporate, but an normal anti particle has a positive energy.

[Horatius]

Not quite, normal pair production would give the anti particle postive not negative energy. It might relate to virtual particals related to black holes and why they evaporate, but an normal anti particle has a positive energy.



That's something I had wondered about when I read that application. He tosses in that negative term without any explanation. I wasn't sure if it was legitimate or not, as it's been quite a while since I dealt with such things, and never did go into that much detail. Again, it's these sorts of issues that can raise questions about whether or not an application is legitimate.

Even in this case where the idea is pretty clearly woo, there is room for honest diagreement on some issues, and for an examiner to reject the application, he has to ensure that his arguments are valid.

[drkitten]

Not quite, normal pair production would give the anti particle postive not negative energy. It might relate to virtual particals ...

Virtual pair production isn't routine? It goes all the way back to Dirac. The failure to make it clear that he's talking about virtual particles -- or more accurately, the failure to distinguish the two -- is exactly the sort of mistake I would expect of a patent attorney who hasn't taken grad-level physics....

[ponderingturtle]

Virtual pair production isn't routine? It goes all the way back to Dirac. The failure to make it clear that he's talking about virtual particles -- or more accurately, the failure to distinguish the two -- is exactly the sort of mistake I would expect of a patent attorney who hasn't taken grad-level physics....

Or at least paid attention to A Brief History of Time.

[Pyrts]

High Woo-ness.

His abstract shows that his educational claims are quite dubious:
Many scientists, especially Physicists, have always followed the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy. Guess what? I am that Physicist! Given an Associate of Arts in Physics from the University of California at Riverside and a Bachelor of Science in both Professional Mathematics and Computer Science, I stumbled with surprise on a very unique undiscovered theoretical process of Unlimited Energy by Matter-Antimatter Production and Separation that follows the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy! Given this discovery and explanation, many applications beneficial to our society will be stated and claimed in this Patent Application.

In fact, I suspect he's lying about the degrees. Unless "associate of arts in physics" means "using explosives to paint canvases in interesting ways", I don't see how he got out of any physics program without at least a basic foundation. Unless he flunked those classes, of course.

At the Berkeley High Energy Bubble Chamber Laboratory, a particle and antiparticle was discovered and seen produced in empty space independent of any outside influence.

No argument there.
The reason why this is possible is that a particle, E=mc.sup.2, and antiparticle, -E=mc.sup.2, when their Energies are added together, equals zero, conserving the law of the conservation of mass and energy, in which they annihilate back to zero when the particle and antiparticle combine again due to their opposite electrical charge
His use of the E=MC2 equation shows that he has no clue what the equation really means or what its significance is.

What happens when you keep the particle and antiparticle from annihilating back to zero?
We get zero energy. Next question...

you entice and produce more particles and antiparticles and completely separate them through an electromagnetic barrier you will create an unlimited supply of matter on one side and an unlimited supply of antimatter on the other side.
...using particle kibble? Electrons with teeny bikinis? Scantily clad protons? Note that there's no acknowledgement of the rarity of the event in any given small space.

In other words, "Enticing" more pairs to be produced in space and keeping the pairs continually separated, through maybe an electromagnetic system, causes a build up of matter, which can be used for energy and to discard the remains of the antimatter
It's a patent. The use of "maybe an electromagnetic system" indicates he's never been in a lab.

This would, mathematically and theoretically, produce unlimited energy because of the fact that energy of one matter unit equivalent to E=mc.sup.2 is greater than the electromagnetic separation energy, E.sub.s, and enticement energy, E.sub.e, between the matter and the antimatter pair.
And old batteries, if left alone for awhile, will magically recharge themselves.

He has no clue about science.

[0008] With this concept of unlimited energy, I speculated further and found how God created the universe because the universe has infinite energy mainly in the form of matter. So, in a sense, God created the universe through this method, which nullifies the Big Bang Creation Theory, because the latter disobeys the law of the conservation of mass and energy. Thus, I have named this process as Electro-Nucleo Genesoids because it generates Energy or Matter from virtually nothing, which is empty space.

His cosmology is a little messed up, too. I'm surprised, though, that the Intelligent Design folks haven't leaped all over this one.

If you look at our Milky Way Galaxy, scientists already have proof of planets orbiting around each star.

No we don't. In fact, we know that there's no planets around some stars.

How can all this beautiful and organized matter form without an intelligent designer?
Gravity and physics, of course, have nothing to do with it.

This Work is dedicated to my Most Intelligent Brother, Manolito Catalasan, who invited Peter Paul Catalasan to study Physics at the University of California at Riverside, upon which Peter Paul became the first to discover Unlimited Energy through Matter/Antimatter Production/Separation
Nothing like a little trumpet-blowing.

Having the knowledge of Unlimited Energy, we can apply such energies to overcome long distances through the use of Einstein's properties of Relativity upon which many equations have negative time dependency related to the speed of light. For example, if it takes one million light-years to get to another Galaxy, why not go back in time for one million light-years while traveling there, therefore arriving at t=0.
Because a) you have no clue what Einstein's theory really says and b) it's pretty clear you haven't studied the physics of time travel (there's a number of these studies, actually, including some at the subatomic level).

Finally...
Given this opportunity, and a coordinated research effort between Valentino Catalasan, Victor Catalasan, and Peter Paul Catalasan, we can form an Advanced Research Laboratory, called the Advanced Catalasan Research Laboratory, Inc, or ACRL, which will spin off to a committed effort for any Noble Research Activity, where Manolito, as Chief Executive Officer, will own the Research Information.

Well, yes you can form your corporation -- there's no need to patent it. That's a matter for a lawyer (forming a LLC.) However, given the 100% control of intellectual properties, I don't see it as an attractive group to work for unless they pay six figure salaries.


The responsibilities of research and development come from Valentino Catalasan--Chief Technology Officer, Peter Paul Catalasan--Research Director, and Victor Catalasan--Engineering Physicist. We all have Technological First Loves, Computer Science for Valentino, Physics for Peter Paul, Engineering for Victor, and the Last Star Fighter Austin Catalasan
Uhm... yeah.

[drkitten]

I've been thinking about posting this thread for a few weeks now, but today I've been searching on some rather different subject matter than I usually do, and ran across a nice one I wanted to share, that will be (I think) a nice, easy intro into the topic. If things go well, I'll post more examples for us to discuss.

So has this patent, in fact, been granted? Has it been rejected?

And if not, what kind of argument would you need to make in order to support a determination to reject? It seems (ahem) patently obvious to me that his claims are not possible and therefore not useful, but the mere fact that he may be lying about his degrees, that he has no idea how to set up a a corporation to exploit it, and seems to have confused his patent app with an Oscar speech is irrelevant (although Pyrts did make some interesting reading.)

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm, thinking on this, it would seem the patent is for an artificial event horizon.

[Horatius]

So has this patent, in fact, been granted? Has it been rejected?



It's status as of Jan. 2004 is "Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action". This action doesn't seem to be online, so we don't know what the examiner had to say, unfortunately. You might be able to request the documents from the USPTO, though.




And if not, what kind of argument would you need to make in order to support a determination to reject?



Well, you'd need to explain, preferably with links to references, why his proposed system could not function. It would be easiest to explain his misunderstandings of the energy conservation involved in this case, IMO.

You could also argue that his "Theoretical Electromagnetic Field, not defined yet but will be defined when experiments are actually made, that separates the matter and antimatter produced by the enticement energy, particle, or field" is an essential part of the claimed apparatus, that he has left entirely undefined. Creating such a device to enable the working of the alleged invention would constitute an invention in and of itself. Basically, arguing that, even if his fundamental ideas were sound, he still hasn't disclosed enough detail to enable a skilled worker to build the apparatus.

Of course, I've found it's actually easier to get the crazy people to abandon their applications than it is to get the frauds to do so, and in this case, it's pretty clear he's on the crazy side.

[Horatius]

Hmm, thinking on this, it would seem the patent is for an artificial event horizon.



So all we need to figure out is how to crate a portable Black Hole, and we're there!

Trivial, really.

[drkitten]

So all we need to figure out is how to crate a portable Black Hole, and we're there!

Lemme get back to you on that. Thursday good?

[Horatius]

Lemme get back to you on that. Thursday good?



No, I have a meeting that day.


I guess I'll have to miss out on all that free energy :(

[Horatius]

Okay, that first one was fun and easy. Now a more complicated one. This is one I saw recently as a Canadian Patent Application that was being worked on by another examiner, and my initial reaction was to think it was woo. What do you think?

The US equivalent is US Patent 6 689 124. (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6689124)

From their introduction to the patent:

The present invention relates to a device for controlling external medical treatment with the aid of light, more specifically with light that palliates and/or cures different states of diseases.

Swedish Patent Specification No. 502 784 for example describes an apparatus for external medical treatment with the aid of light. The apparatus includes a light emitting device which is intended to be held against or in the close proximity of the patient's body, and drive means for operating the light emitting device. The light emitting device includes light emitting diodes or corresponding elements and is adapted to emit infrared light. According to the invention described in this patent specification, the means for driving the light emitting device is adapted to control said device to emit infrared light in a first stage and thereafter to emit visible light in a second stage. The drive means is also adapted to control the light emitting device to pulsate the infrared light and the visible light emitted, in accordance with a predetermined series of pulse frequencies.

It is also known to emit other types of monochromatic light for treating different states of diseases.

It is also known that a very good result can be achieved when treating solely with one or more types of monochromatic lights other than infrared light, such as with visible light of different colours, emitted according to a certain pulse frequency.

It has been found that an apparatus of the aforesaid kind can be used very successfully for treating many different types of diseases, wounds and injuries, for instance sport sustained injuries, stretched muscles, muscular pain, joint pain, headaches, various inflammatory conditions, various skin complaints, such as acne, back pains, etc., provided that the light is emitted in a certain way. In this regard, treatment with light has a favourable influence on injury healing processes and will palliate and/or cure various diseases.

There is thus an understanding that treatment with certain light that is emitted in certain frequency series will have a significantly greater effect in shortening the time taken to cure or palliate a disease.

[ponderingturtle]

Okay, that first one was fun and easy. Now a more complicated one. This is one I saw recently as a Canadian Patent Application that was being worked on by another examiner, and my initial reaction was to think it was woo. What do you think?

The US equivalent is US Patent 6 689 124. (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6689124)

From their introduction to the patent:

It would seem to be largely full of crap. It is very vague about what it is supposed to treat other than "Diseases" and in the end it lists things that are not diseases. It might be useful for some of those though as if it emitted enough IR light it could act similarly to a heat pad and be good for pulled muscles.

If it really treated diseases wouldn't it need FDA approval in addition to a patent?

[Cuddles]

Something no-one else seems to have pointed out:
At the Berkeley High Energy Bubble Chamber Laboratory, a particle and antiparticle was discovered and seen produced in empty space independent of any outside influence.
Regardless of the technicalities of virtual particles and pair production, since when was a bubble chamber free of outside influence? If there was nothing there, what exactly would the bubbles form in?

Edit: Damn my slow typing.

As for the next one, I would say the idea behind it is woo, but the actual patent itself is perfectly legitimate science. Admittedly I don't know much legalese, but it seems the patent is describing something to do with the production and control of emitting light. What the light is then used for is largely irrelevant to the patent.

[drkitten]

Okay, that first one was fun and easy. Now a more complicated one. This is one I saw recently as a Canadian Patent Application that was being worked on by another examiner, and my initial reaction was to think it was woo. What do you think?

The US equivalent is US Patent 6 689 124. (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6689124)


Not enough information to tell. First of all, they're not claiming clinical effectiveness for their treatment, but they're claiming a method of controlling an pre-existing treatment scheme, so the question of woo or not is almost irrelevant. (If I have a method of injecting drugs directly into veins without puncturing the skin, it's a useful invention even if the drugs I claim to deliver are homeopathic saline solution.)

Second, there are no non-patent references so it's not possible to gauge the validity of the underlying medicine.

But the engineering itself seems sound and legitimate.

If I had to make a decision, it's not a woo-patent in and of itself, but potentially (probably?) a woo-enabling patent.

ETA: I assume this one has been granted?

[drkitten]

Regardless of the technicalities of virtual particles and pair production, since when was a bubble chamber free of outside influence? If there was nothing there, what exactly would the bubbles form in?

Again, this seems like a typical patent-agent phrasing. I'm not sure what sort of "influence" you think the bubble medium is exerting, but I see no problem with how the agent wrote it using small words for the examiner....

[Magic 9-Ball]

Second, there are no non-patent references so it's not possible to gauge the validity of the underlying medicine.

But the engineering itself seems sound and legitimate.

Sure, because it seems like they're using a computer control lights. How can that be patentable? Plus they're using card readers. Ooohh, that's an innovation, too.

I know that you can use extra lights when people are depressed in winter. You can get vitamin D from the Sun. Maybe he went to a lot of Discos in the 70’s and the rotating ball hanging from the ceiling made him feel good?

[Horatius]

It would seem to be largely full of crap. It is very vague about what it is supposed to treat other than "Diseases" and in the end it lists things that are not diseases. It might be useful for some of those though as if it emitted enough IR light it could act similarly to a heat pad and be good for pulled muscles.



You have to remember that the description part of a patent is addressed to "one skilled in the art", who would have an understanding of the commonly accepted general knowledge in the given art. You could argue that such a person would be expected to know about earlier uses of light therapy devices, and understand that this new dvice could be used in similar circumstances.

So the question really becomes, is light therapy as they describe it a known phenomenon, or not?

Here's a few links to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/975450257.html

http://www.bioptron.com/?m=407\

https://www.oxhp.com/secure/policy/pulsed_monochromatic_light_therapy_607.html

If you Google "light therapy" and "light therapy wounds", you find other similar articles. Some positive, some negative. How do you determine which are most credible?





If it really treated diseases wouldn't it need FDA approval in addition to a patent?


Quite possibly. The Patent Office doesn't care about that part, though.

[Horatius]

Sure, because it seems like they're using a computer control lights. How can that be patentable? Plus they're using card readers. Ooohh, that's an innovation, too.





That gets into the whole issue of what is a patentable improvement over the existing prior art, which is a bit different from what I was hoping to discuss here. What I'm looking for is an analysis of the fundamental technology - Does it work, regardless of whether or not it's a significant change over what has been done before? And how could you prove it one way of the other, such that your arguments would stand up to scrutiny by the Courts?

[Horatius]

If I had to make a decision, it's not a woo-patent in and of itself, but potentially (probably?) a woo-enabling patent.

ETA: I assume this one has been granted?



Yes, this has been granted in the States and Europe.

And it is an interesting question: Can you patent something that is used in a woo way, as long as the device itself isn't woo? History would suggest "Yes" as the answer.

[drkitten]

Sure, because it seems like they're using a computer control lights. How can that be patentable?

Because it's a novel application of computer-controlled lights. The fact that the previous generation of researchers into light therapy didn't use computer controlled lights (and therefore couldn't get round-the-clock monitoring and the increased accuracy in dosage administration) illustrates the novelness.


Plus they're using card readers. Ooohh, that's an innovation, too.

The threshhold for "nonobvious" is pretty low, legally speaking.



I know that you can use extra lights when people are depressed in winter. You can get vitamin D from the Sun. Maybe he went to a lot of Discos in the 70’s and the rotating ball hanging from the ceiling made him feel good?

So what? This isn't relevant. As I said, this isn't a patent about light therapy, but about a method of administering light therapy. Given that light therapy is out there, that there are people who want to receive light therapy, and there are light therapists who would want to buy this device to make their treatments more efficienct -- it's a useful patent.

It's not woo; at worst it's woo-enabling.

[drkitten]

And it is an interesting question: Can you patent something that is used in a woo way, as long as the device itself isn't woo? History would suggest "Yes" as the answer.

it is indeed an interesting question -- one I'd not previously considered. Offhand, I would argue that the answer should be yes, for two reasons. First, the inventor really has no way of controlling the use that the client makes of his devices, and second, the purpose of the patent is to protect the value of the invention, not the value of the use.

So if I come up with a new device that would let Sylvia cold-read with greater accuracy,that's a very valuable gadget to her, in that she will pay lots of money for it, and to me in the sense that she (and others like her) will pay me lots of money for it. It may be morally reprehensible, but it's commercially valuable.

[ponderingturtle]

You have to remember that the description part of a patent is addressed to "one skilled in the art", who would have an understanding of the commonly accepted general knowledge in the given art. You could argue that such a person would be expected to know about earlier uses of light therapy devices, and understand that this new dvice could be used in similar circumstances.

The problem is that light can certainly have an effect and treat some things and heat such as the IR diodes would also have an effect. But it was the non-specific use of disease that sets off the bells in my mind. If it was a legitimate medical claim I would expect much more precision as to what it effected. But then again that might not be the role of the patent office and so specifying the disease it treated might not be needed. But then listing the conditions it treats that are not diseases becomes more suspect.

So my lay skeptical guess to this is that it seems to be a device that was built, but most likely will be used in woo medical practices. I am not sure about the visible light but a pulsing relatively strong IR light might be relaxing.

So the question really becomes, is light therapy as they describe it a known phenomenon, or not?

As it seems to be described? It seems more like woo when they talk about the need for pulsing light and such.

Here's a few links to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/975450257.html

http://www.bioptron.com/?m=407\

https://www.oxhp.com/secure/policy/pulsed_monochromatic_light_therapy_607.html

If you Google "light therapy" and "light therapy wounds", you find other similar articles. Some positive, some negative. How do you determine which are most credible?

I would have problems with that as I admit that I do not have the background to tell a well designed study from a poorly designed study easily(well unless it is blatantly obvious) I have a reasonable background in physics and not much in medicine.


Quite possibly. The Patent Office doesn't care about that part, though.

Actually I was wrong it is definitely the realm of the FDA, the company I work for is working on a part for a medical device and they need X number for engineering trials and then Y number for test trials to get FDA approval. So medical devices do need to be approved by the FDA at least sometimes.

[ponderingturtle]

Because it's a novel application of computer-controlled lights. The fact that the previous generation of researchers into light therapy didn't use computer controlled lights (and therefore couldn't get round-the-clock monitoring and the increased accuracy in dosage administration) illustrates the novelness.
.

This seems to be a different sort of light therapy than what I thought was being described in the quote. This would seem to be for seasonal affective disorder, while I thought that the light was more for topical use as well as being strobed(well it is referenced as having frequency but I was thinking it would be measured in hertz, and not have a period measured in minutes).

But I agree that this seems like a patentable woo device.

[drkitten]

The problem is that light can certainly have an effect and treat some things and heat such as the IR diodes would also have an effect. But it was the non-specific use of disease that sets off the bells in my mind. If it was a legitimate medical claim I would expect much more precision as to what it effected.

That's kind of my point, though. It's not a medical claim, but a device claim.

As a simple example, suppose I find a new typeface (font) that can be shown to increase retention of written materials by 50%, because it ties directly into some properties of the neurological system. Obvoiusly, that's a breakthrough -- and a patentable one -- in a lot of fields, including education (every textbook company in the world will want to reprint their texts using my new font).

But I don't need to specify which books would be reprinted. It is enough to know that educators currently use books to deliver information and that this will be an improvement in how books work.

[drkitten]

Actually I was wrong it is definitely the realm of the FDA, the company I work for is working on a part for a medical device and they need X number for engineering trials and then Y number for test trials to get FDA approval. So medical devices do need to be approved by the FDA at least sometimes.

DIfferent approval -- different purpose -- different agency.

You need the FDA's approval to sell or use a medical device.

You need the USPTO's "approval" to claim ownership of the idea behind the medical device and to keep other people from selling or using it without licencing the rights from you.

And not all devices used in treatment need FDA approval. As a simple example, I don't think the FDA has a list of "approved" watches that nurses use when they take pulses, and I don't think I would need FDA approval to market a special six-second timer for pulse-taking purposes, either.

[ponderingturtle]

DIfferent approval -- different purpose -- different agency.

You need the FDA's approval to sell or use a medical device.

You need the USPTO's "approval" to claim ownership of the idea behind the medical device and to keep other people from selling or using it without licencing the rights from you.

And not all devices used in treatment need FDA approval. As a simple example, I don't think the FDA has a list of "approved" watches that nurses use when they take pulses, and I don't think I would need FDA approval to market a special six-second timer for pulse-taking purposes, either.

Of course not, that would likely fall under standards and measures.

[ponderingturtle]

That's kind of my point, though. It's not a medical claim, but a device claim.

As a simple example, suppose I find a new typeface (font) that can be shown to increase retention of written materials by 50%, because it ties directly into some properties of the neurological system. Obvoiusly, that's a breakthrough -- and a patentable one -- in a lot of fields, including education (every textbook company in the world will want to reprint their texts using my new font).


So are typeface's patentable in general then? Or would that ones special properties make it patentable?

[Horatius]

it is indeed an interesting question -- one I'd not previously considered. Offhand, I would argue that the answer should be yes, for two reasons. First, the inventor really has no way of controlling the use that the client makes of his devices, and second, the purpose of the patent is to protect the value of the invention, not the value of the use.

So if I come up with a new device that would let Sylvia cold-read with greater accuracy,that's a very valuable gadget to her, in that she will pay lots of money for it, and to me in the sense that she (and others like her) will pay me lots of money for it. It may be morally reprehensible, but it's commercially valuable.



This is pretty much the case as it stands. The "utility" that is required to acquire a patent can simply be an "economic utility", that is, anything that someone will pay for. The reasoning is, no one would pay good money for something that doesn't actually work.

The question then becomes, how far along this slope do we want to slip? Your proposed Cold Reading device clearly has a utility to Sylvia, as it increases her revenues. What about some of the devices like the Wine Clip that Randi has discussed? There's no evidence that it does anything, but there are poeple out there who think that it improves their wine. The only demonstratable utility it has is transferring mney from the customers to the manufacturers. Should we patent these devices or not?

And, if we decide to patent anything that somebody somewhere might pay for, are we then wasting our time even trying to figure out if the proposed technolgy works? Because we all know, someone somewhere will pay money for anything.

[Horatius]

So are typeface's patentable in general then? Or would that ones special properties make it patentable?



I think you'd have to demonstrate that the typeface has the suggested functionality, otherwise it falls under copyright. Mere presentations of printed text aren't considered patentable, usually.

[Horatius]

This seems to be a different sort of light therapy than what I thought was being described in the quote.



That's another question to consider - does the presentation of several "uses", some of which are legitimate, and some which aren't, affect the patentability of the device? Should it affect the patentability?

[drkitten]

This is pretty much the case as it stands. The "utility" that is required to acquire a patent can simply be an "economic utility", that is, anything that someone will pay for. The reasoning is, no one would pay good money for something that doesn't actually work.

That reasoning is clearly fallacious, as the anti-bunko squad of your local police department will be happy to testify.

Lots of people will pay good money for things that they are told work, even when they don't. The technical term for this is "fraud." To that extent, the patent office should (in my ideal universe -- Kittentopia forever!) be responsible for making sure that devices actually satisfy the claims.

I have no problem giving the patent office the authority to reject fraudulent applications.



The question then becomes, how far along this slope do we want to slip? Your proposed Cold Reading device clearly has a utility to Sylvia, as it increases her revenues. What about some of the devices like the Wine Clip that Randi has discussed? There's no evidence that it does anything, but there are poeple out there who think that it improves their wine. The only demonstratable utility it has is transferring mney from the customers to the manufacturers. Should we patent these devices or not?

No, because there's no evidence that the devices actually fulfill the claims made for them.

Another way of looking at would be to set policy such that a) all claims made must be truthful (any untruthful claim is grounds for rejection) and b) the burden of proof for establishing "truth" is on the claimant. So if you want to patent a brick as a cancer preventative, you must show that it does indeed prevent cancer.

[drkitten]

That's another question to consider - does the presentation of several "uses", some of which are legitimate, and some which aren't, affect the patentability of the device? Should it affect the patentability?

Well, distinguishing between "fraud" (as I defined in the previous post) and the merely silly, I would say that a single fraudulent claim should result in immediate rejection. If someone wants to patent the silly-but-honest, I have no problem there.

[Cuddles]

Again, this seems like a typical patent-agent phrasing. I'm not sure what sort of "influence" you think the bubble medium is exerting, but I see no problem with how the agent wrote it using small words for the examiner....

The influence would be the electromagnetic fields of the particles in the medium, as well as the magnetic fields applied to it. The whole point of the observations of pair production was that they fired photons into the bubble chamber and saw pair production as a result. This relies entirely on the interaction between the photons and the particles in the chamber, and the entire prcoess takes place in strong magnetic fields, so to describe it as "in empty space independent of any outside influence" is just plain wrong. It seems much more likely that it was written to be deliberately misleading to the examiner, rather than to help them understand. Incidentally, as far as I am aware there is no such thing as "the Berkeley High Energy Bubble Chamber Laboratory".

Well, distinguishing between "fraud" (as I defined in the previous post) and the merely silly, I would say that a single fraudulent claim should result in immediate rejection. If someone wants to patent the silly-but-honest, I have no problem there.

It depends where you draw the line between a patent and it's applications. For example, a magnet to improve the taste of wine doesn't do what it claims, and is therefore a fraud. However, a magnet to be placed on the top of a wine bottle does exactly what it says, and so is not a fraud, even though most, if not all, possible reasons for wanting to do this are. This seems to be the case with Horatius' patent. The machine itself does exactly what is claimed, and so is not a fraud. It is the reasons for wanting a machine to do this that are fraudulent, but that is not covered by the patent office.

Personally, I'm not really sure the patent office should determine not only if the patent is a fraud, but also the possible applications. The problem is, what if someone thinks of a new application? For example, wine magnets might not make wine taste better, but what if someone invents a wine rack that uses them? Shouldn't the original inventor not get credit just because he didn't think of using them for that? Similarly, light therapy might not work, but that machine could be the perfect thing for making laser displays for ants, and it's inventor should get credit for that.

There is also the problem that there may be controversy in the area. Homeopathy is obviously fraud and vaccines are obviously not, yet there are millions of people who believe the exact opposite. Where do you draw the line for which patents would be allowed? I think it is far better to leave the patent office to determine if something is original and patentable and let the relevant scientific community answer questions about whether it is actually worth anything.

[drkitten]

It depends where you draw the line between a patent and it's applications. For example, a magnet to improve the taste of wine doesn't do what it claims, and is therefore a fraud. However, a magnet to be placed on the top of a wine bottle does exactly what it says,

Yes, and unless you explain why someone would want to do this, your patent is not "useful" and therefore not grantable. (That's existing law; you have to explain what the invention is useful for as well as just describing the invention.)

and so is not a fraud, even though most, if not all, possible reasons for wanting to do this are.

Yup. In which case, I would actually support granting the patent, and then subpoena-ing the the company to determine who has licenced this patent in order to prosecute them for fraud.


This seems to be the case with Horatius' patent. The machine itself does exactly what is claimed, and so is not a fraud. It is the reasons for wanting a machine to do this that are fraudulent, but that is not covered by the patent office.

Well, it is -- but not by that particular patent. The actual fraud is the person who tried to patent "light therapy," and that patent should be denied....


Personally, I'm not really sure the patent office should determine not only if the patent is a fraud, but also the possible applications. The problem is, what if someone thinks of a new application? For example, wine magnets might not make wine taste better, but what if someone invents a wine rack that uses them? Shouldn't the original inventor not get credit just because he didn't think of using them for that?

That's the "derivative work" problem. Under current law -- and sensibly so, in my mind -- no, he doesn't. However, in order to licence the wine-rack patent, an end user will also need to licence the original magnet patent. If I improve an idea of yours, I get to patent my improvement, but your patent remains in force.

Similarly, light therapy might not work, but that machine could be the perfect thing for making laser displays for ants, and it's inventor should get credit for that.

He gets credit for the machine, but the person who thought of "laser displays for ants" gets credit for that application. Separate invention, separate application, separate patent, separate but dependent licence.



There is also the problem that there may be controversy in the area. Homeopathy is obviously fraud and vaccines are obviously not, yet there are millions of people who believe the exact opposite. Where do you draw the line for which patents would be allowed?

The same spot you draw the line for which patents are "obvious" -- the expertise of the patent examiner.

I think it is far better to leave the patent office to determine if something is original and patentable and let the relevant scientific community answer questions about whether it is actually worth anything.

You think that patent examiners don't read the journals, too?

[ponderingturtle]

The influence would be the electromagnetic fields of the particles in the medium, as well as the magnetic fields applied to it. The whole point of the observations of pair production was that they fired photons into the bubble chamber and saw pair production as a result. This relies entirely on the interaction between the photons and the particles in the chamber, and the entire prcoess takes place in strong magnetic fields, so to describe it as "in empty space independent of any outside influence" is just plain wrong. It seems much more likely that it was written to be deliberately misleading to the examiner, rather than to help them understand. Incidentally, as far as I am aware there is no such thing as "the Berkeley High Energy Bubble Chamber Laboratory".

But that is exactly not the kind of pair production that seems to be referenced because that takes a lot of energy to create the pair of particles. Creating a pair of particles that together have 0 energy would seem to be virtual praticles.

[Cuddles]

Yes, and unless you explain why someone would want to do this, your patent is not "useful" and therefore not grantable. (That's existing law; you have to explain what the invention is useful for as well as just describing the invention.)

I admit I don't know all that much about patent law. How useful does an invention actually have to be? For example, would "It looks pretty" count as useful?

Yup. In which case, I would actually support granting the patent, and then subpoena-ing the the company to determine who has licenced this patent in order to prosecute them for fraud.

Fair enough. In this case that would fall under the relevant health-related department. That's kind of what I meant at the end of my post. The patent office grants the patent and it is up to the relevant regulatory bodies to determine if the application is fraud or not.

Well, it is -- but not by that particular patent. The actual fraud is the person who tried to patent "light therapy," and that patent should be denied....

Sure. But is light therapy actually patented? As far as I know it's a fairly new idea so it might be, but what about something like acupuncture? If the machine was a new way of sticking needles in people, it does exactly as claimed so is elligible for a patent, but what could the patent office do about acupuncture? It's up to the health authorities to deal with that, not the patent office, and I think the same is, or at least should be, true for any invention.

That's the "derivative work" problem. Under current law -- and sensibly so, in my mind -- no, he doesn't. However, in order to licence the wine-rack patent, an end user will also need to licence the original magnet patent. If I improve an idea of yours, I get to patent my improvement, but your patent remains in force.

He gets credit for the machine, but the person who thought of "laser displays for ants" gets credit for that application. Separate invention, separate application, separate patent, separate but dependent licence.

That's what I meant, sorry for not being clear.

The same spot you draw the line for which patents are "obvious" -- the expertise of the patent examiner.

You think that patent examiners don't read the journals, too?

But where is that line exactly? Even being an expert in the field and reading journals doesn't necessarily help. For example, what if someone patented a cold fusion machine when that was popular? There were plenty of scientists arguing both sides. How would a patent examiner decide whether the machine was a fraud or not? I think it is better to let the patent office decide what is patentable and let the relevant communities or authorities decide whether a particular use is a fraud. For example, I really don't mind someone patenting the idea of putting magnets around the neck of a wine glass. It's when they try to sell them with claims that they improve the flavour that they are engaging in fraud, and I think that is up to trading standards to deal with, not the patent office.

[drkitten]

I admit I don't know all that much about patent law. How useful does an invention actually have to be? For example, would "It looks pretty" count as useful?

There's such a creature as a "design patent" that does let you patent cool-looking stuff, yes. (Apple Computer holds a lot of those, as you might expect.) But that's different from the run-of-the-mill patent we're talking about here.


Fair enough. In this case that would fall under the relevant health-related department. That's kind of what I meant at the end of my post. The patent office grants the patent and it is up to the relevant regulatory bodies to determine if the application is fraud or not.

There's no reason the patent office can't also make that determination.



Sure. But is light therapy actually patented? As far as I know it's a fairly new idea so it might be, but what about something like acupuncture? If the machine was a new way of sticking needles in people, it does exactly as claimed so is elligible for a patent, but what could the patent office do about acupuncture?

Not much. That doesn't mean that the patent office can't do something about light therapy.


But where is that line exactly?

I already answered that; "the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish the truth of his claims." For most patents, this is relatively trivial and a routine part of the invention process; all of my patents are backed up by peer-reviewed citations to the literature demonstrating that they work as claimed.

Even being an expert in the field and reading journals doesn't necessarily help. For example, what if someone patented a cold fusion machine when that was popular? There were plenty of scientists arguing both sides. How would a patent examiner decide whether the machine was a fraud or not?

"The burden of proof is on the claimant." If the claimant can't make a case, the patent should be denied.


For example, I really don't mind someone patenting the idea of putting magnets around the neck of a wine glass.

But that's not patentable. It's not useful.

In order to make it patentable, you have to explain why you would do that -- i.e.

It's when they try to sell them with claims that they improve the flavour that they are engaging in fraud,

And I have no problem preventing them from committing fraud before people get bilked. Specifically, if the patentable claim is inherently fraudent, then any action on the basis of that claim is fraudulent.

Hell, I'd argue that merely applying for such a patent should be evidence to support a "conspiracy to defraud" charge.

[Horatius]

"The burden of proof is on the claimant." If the claimant can't make a case, the patent should be denied.

...

In order to make it patentable, you have to explain why you would do that


...

And I have no problem preventing them from committing fraud before people get bilked. Specifically, if the patentable claim is inherently fraudent, then any action on the basis of that claim is fraudulent.

Hell, I'd argue that merely applying for such a patent should be evidence to support a "conspiracy to defraud" charge.



Part of the problem is, an inventor doesn't have to know how his invention works to get a patent. Even if the theory of operation is utimately proven to be wrong, the patent is still allowed to stand. As long as it can be shown to work, why it works is irrelevant.

In the case of the wine clips, they could provide lots of examples of people who claim they can detect a difference in the wines. The fact that these examples aren't double-blind tests may not be of interest to the courts, who are ultimately responsible for establishing the standards the patent examiners are expected to use.

Has there been any case of a judge determining that double-blinded studies are the only legally acceptable studies?

Also, you don't allow for the possibility of people who are honestly deluded about the usefulness of their alleged invention. They may be wrong, but can you really conclude that they are automatically frauds? After all, their customers are honestly deluded as to the effectiveness of the device, aren't they?

[drkitten]

Part of the problem is, an inventor doesn't have to know how his invention works to get a patent.

No, but he should have to know that it works.



In the case of the wine clips, they could provide lots of examples of people who claim they can detect a difference in the wines. The fact that these examples aren't double-blind tests may not be of interest to the courts, who are ultimately responsible for establishing the standards the patent examiners are expected to use.

Has there been any case of a judge determining that double-blinded studies are the only legally acceptable studies?

I don't know, but I suspect that the FDA has been involved in several court cases that involve what is and is not acceptable proof of "effectiveness." I would love to hear what argument a lawyer would make to establish that an item is "useful" without being "effective" for its proposed use....



Also, you don't allow for the possibility of people who are honestly deluded about the usefulness of their alleged invention. They may be wrong, but can you really conclude that they are automatically frauds?

No, and in this case I wouldn't bother to prosecute. But I don't think the fact that they're deluded creates an obligation on the government to humour them to the extent of giving them a patent. If I went bonkers and decided that I was a Navy captain, would the government give me a submarine to command? If I decided I was Superman, would the FAA let me file flight plans?