I don't read that a prototype is required either. It does seem though, that if a claim is rejected based on incredible utility or, in UK patent law, "Patents Act 1949 §10(1)(a), formerly provided that the Comptroller might refuse an application if it appeared that it was ‘frivolous on the ground that it claims as an invention anything obviously contrary to well-established natural laws’. " from https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/2/3/136/2358262
The idea is that if a claim is rejected, a prototype may be the only recourse for appeal. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/the-patent-law-of-perpetual-motion/id=19828/
Are there any patents with a claim of perpetual motion (or free energy) currently granted in the UK or US?
___________________
It seems that there is a lot of lawyer squabble about rejection on the basis of "contrary to well-established natural laws". One of the points made here
is that science is always advancing so that what is viewed as impossible is always a temporary state..."just think about cloaking devices and a transporter a la Star Trek, which are already to some extent realities. See here, here, here for cloaking and this, this and NASA acknowledging “small numbers of atoms and photons have been teleported” for transporter technology futurism. "
I can buy that argument, but only if a prototype can be presented which can prove the claim (see references for Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (1989).) So, I think that a working prototype is NOT required, as stated, but that a claim that is rejected may, functionally, require a working prototype if one wants to win an appeal.
___________________
The point that I want to reiterate, if it was not clear, is that the patent granted for the device that the OP brought up, does not look as though there is anything close to a claim of free energy. It was just a lot of weasel words, in my non-expert opinion, about free energy in the description, but the claim was basically "A system for generating energy such that a portion of the generated energy supplies power to the system that generated the energy... ".
The idea is that if a claim is rejected, a prototype may be the only recourse for appeal. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/the-patent-law-of-perpetual-motion/id=19828/
as shown by the countless patents on older perpetual motion machines
Are there any patents with a claim of perpetual motion (or free energy) currently granted in the UK or US?
___________________
It seems that there is a lot of lawyer squabble about rejection on the basis of "contrary to well-established natural laws". One of the points made here
is that science is always advancing so that what is viewed as impossible is always a temporary state..."just think about cloaking devices and a transporter a la Star Trek, which are already to some extent realities. See here, here, here for cloaking and this, this and NASA acknowledging “small numbers of atoms and photons have been teleported” for transporter technology futurism. "
I can buy that argument, but only if a prototype can be presented which can prove the claim (see references for Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (1989).) So, I think that a working prototype is NOT required, as stated, but that a claim that is rejected may, functionally, require a working prototype if one wants to win an appeal.
___________________
The point that I want to reiterate, if it was not clear, is that the patent granted for the device that the OP brought up, does not look as though there is anything close to a claim of free energy. It was just a lot of weasel words, in my non-expert opinion, about free energy in the description, but the claim was basically "A system for generating energy such that a portion of the generated energy supplies power to the system that generated the energy... ".
Last edited: