The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-12-28

the great problem, and their alleged
discoveries were exploited at length In
the newspapers. There the matter
ended.
Application for a patent cost a fee,
which cannot be recovered if the pat
ent is not granted. 1t is to save these
fees, which amount to thousands OF
dollars every year, that the COM
missioner of patents has made be-
nevolent ruling. Reputable patent at
torneys usually tell the inventor that
he is wasting his money in making APP
pIication, but experience has shown
that it is generally impossible to con-
vince an inventor that his schemes are
impracticabIe so that many an at
torney, much against his will is COM
PEELED to prepare specifications and
claims which relate to an invention
that is imperative.
Hard to Stop Inventors"
In the past it has been the prac-
tice of the patent Office to demand
a working model from the inventor
of perptuaI motion machines. The
man who cannot be convinced by an
attorney that his machine is inopera-
tive is not likely to be discouraged by
such requirement. The result is that
many an inventor spends hundreds and
perhaps thousands of hard earned
dollars in trying to build an operative
perpetual motion model-a task which
any one with an elem knowledge
of mechanics can tell him is hopeless.
The commissioner, in order to spare
the inventor the necessity of parting
with at least the government fees for
an apnIication which must inevitably
be rejected, has decided that hereafter
no application for a patent on per-
petuaI motion machine will be con-
sidered at all unless working modei
is filed in the very first place.
The exact wording of the commits
sioner's ruling is as follows: THE
views of the patent office are in ac-
cord with those of the scientists VINO
have investigated this subject and are
to the effect that such devices are |
physical impossibilities. The position
Of the office can be rebutted only by |
the exhibition of a working model |
Were the application to be forwarded |
to the examiner for consideration, he |
would make no examination as to the |
merits. but his first action would be |
The requirement that a working model |
be filed.
In view of all circumstances, the |
has instructed that APP |
olications for patents on perpetual
notion, complete in all other particu- |
airs, shall be held in the application
looms as incomplete until a working
model has been filed
Patents Are Really Toys.
In discussing this ruling, William |
7, Jackson, a leading patent attorney |
IF Philadelphia, said: "The wording |
s a little misleading, in that 1t would /
cad one to infer that perpetual mo- |
ion has never been attained Patents |
nave been granted on many perpetual /
notion machines. but they have all
been merely toys
MANY contrivances have been made |
n which the motion will stop only |
when the machine wears out, but they |
Ire of no practical value. AS soon as |
my work or weight is put upon them
hey stop. It is the perpetual motion
motor or engine which is unattain
lbIe, not merely a machine in which |
may be kept up indefin-
tely.
II have seen several machines,
chiefly on the roller
principle. in which the mo-
or is to all intents and purposes per-
1etuaE The new ruling of the COM
missioner of patents is an excellent
me and is in line with the practice
If reputable patent attorneys"