Re: [Vo]:USPO regulations say cold fusion is "wholly inoperative"

Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> But also see note at end: >> >> > These >> > examples are fact specific and should _not_ be applied as a /per se/ >> > rule. > > Ah, but in fact they do apply this. > > >> I don't see any other way to interpret '... should not be applied a

Re: [Vo]:USPO regulations say cold fusion is "wholly inoperative"

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: But also see note at end: > These > examples are fact specific and should _not_ be applied as a /per se/ > rule. Ah, but in fact they do apply this. I don't see any other way to interpret '... should not be applied as a per se rule ...'. I would interpret that

Re: [Vo]:USPO regulations say cold fusion is "wholly inoperative"

Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm > > > *II.WHOLLY INOPERATIVE INVENTIONS; "INCREDIBLE" UTILITY* > > ... , a "cold fusion" process for > producing energy (/In re Swartz/, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. > Cir. 2

[Vo]:USPO regulations say cold fusion is "wholly inoperative"

See: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm II.WHOLLY INOPERATIVE INVENTIONS; "INCREDIBLE" UTILITY Situations where an invention is found to be "inoperative" and therefore lacking in utility are rare, and rejections maintained solely on this ground by a Fede