So sue me.

[Jim Williams]

Just to nitpick I will add one detail. I believe the examiner doesn't have an actual choice in determining whether a PMM presented to him without a working model can have a utility patent granted, but must respond to law MPEP 706.03(a) Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 ll. UTILITY. which states a rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. The examiner must respond to his/her own MPEP which says no utility patents for perpetual motion, but gives him/her an out by allowing the request of a working model and having created class/subclass 415/916 for that perpetual motion. I agree it would have to be a utility patent rather than a design or plant patent and it is specifically the utility of perpetual motion which the MPEP denies. I note this specific rule does more to protect the examiner as much as anything. I note also what the examiner rules to the inventor does takes on the force of law. Not true anymore, patent examiners were once required to be lawyers.

Actually I think your clarity involving patent law is more easily understood than Pressman's book while noting IMO that Pressman on the subject of perpetual motion tends to evade the entire question.

[rocky]

The problem with being new on here is that I do not know when someone with a good reputation is joking.

For example on this topic user evgwheel said:

“I have six working wheels in my garage and I just sit there, look and think how clever I am. I just don’t want to share them and my brilliance with anyone.�

I wrote him direct but he did not reply. Can someone else please tell me if he is kidding?

rocky

[evgwheel]

I was kidding. If I wasn't you would have been invited to the biggest party ever.