I thought I should start this in a new thread.  I've been thinking on this for awhile and Don's comment got me thinking more about it.  What are peoples thoughts on this patent by mode of operation law?  Would Stan's patent have been granted if the buggy did not drive on this system of water fuel?  Anyone know how to find the text of this patent law?

From the Impedance Matching thread:

Quote from Dynodon on January 5th, 2015, 12:06 PM

From what I've seen of Stan's unit in operation, it scans and locks onto resonance in a couple of seconds. The PLL Stan uses just locks onto LC resonance in the coils. Again, this whole circuit may not have even worked from what Steve told me, some of their efforts didn't work. He wouldn't acknowledge that the cell even worked. By the photo's I took, you can clearly see that it was used.
Don

If the patent was granted by "mode of operation" then I would think every part of the system should work as the documentation claims.   I'd ask Steve one yes or no question, "Can the patent be granted by 'mode of operation' if it failed?"  I've tried to look up patenting by mode of operation on the gov site, but haven't had any luck.  Maybe that law is changed.  Anyway, I don't think Steve will ever admit it worked. 

Even when you look at the modifications to the circuit boards, the cobbled modifications were added to the schematics and were submitted to the patent office.  Probably why they are substitution sheets.  They had to make it work in order to get the patent, which means someone from the patent office had to view it in operation.  Just my opinion.

Good post. I have also asked the question.. unfortunatly patent law is deep and reading thrue goverment page is exhausting.

This is what ive found so far....


"In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement.[1] As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use.[2] The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility,[3] but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_(patent)

So one of requirements is to be "useful"
The other is that it prevents any "fanstastic" perpetual motion macine.

This brings me back to Stans conferences.. he would always mention that there was no one single"magic" "patent" that he could
apply for ..  rather he had to apply for multiple pattents. 

This makes sense becouse if he were to apply for a single "miracle patent". this would probably fall under the "fantastic" perpetual motion machine" clause and his pattents would have been refused.


The question is would the individual pattents fall under "usefullnes" 
Well apparently somebody in the patent office thought so.


Does this mean he had to show proff of operability?
Well according to Stan Meyers himself in the water documentary
he had mentioned that he had to device the WFC model for the patent office for this exact
purpose.

Im sure the clerk saw bubbles.. and as he claims ran and told everbody in room to turn off cigarets.

once he got that specific pattent approved. I belive all remaining pattents would reference that specific pattent.
See link bellow.

unfortunatly if this is what happened its not very encouraging to his later claims.
would be sad to think that his buggy ran on battery power!




"PRIOR ART IS PRESUMED TO BE OPERABLE/ENABLING
When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to provide facts rebutting the presumption of operability"
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2121.html