174:
180:
37:, it must have some credible useful function. If it does not have a credible useful function despite the assertions of the inventor, then the application for patent can be rejected as having "incredible utility". The invention does not have to work the way the inventor thinks it works, but it must do something useful. Patents that have been held invalid for incredible utility include:
239:
280:
223:
273:
314:
108:
319:
329:
324:
266:
309:
107:
A rejection based on incredible utility can be overcome by providing evidence that, "if, considered as a whole, leads a
304:
216:
125:
189:
120:
26:
155:
144:
299:
209:
246:
250:
193:
49:
20:
173:
156:
United States Patent and
Trademark Office Manual of Patent Examination Procedures, 2107.02
145:
United States Patent and
Trademark Office Manual of Patent Examination Procedures, 2107.01
293:
78:
67:
34:
41:
an invention asserted to change the taste of food using a magnetic field (
238:
111:
to conclude that the asserted utility is more likely than not true".
89:
33:
is a concept according to which, in order for an invention to be
59:
a flying machine operating on "flapping or flutter function" (
88:
uncharacterized compositions for curing a wide array of
254:
197:
81:
upon combustion through exposure to a magnetic field (
74:, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. Cir. 2000)),
56:, 877 F.2d 1575, 11 USPQ2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1989)),
45:, 776 F.2d 1034, 227 USPQ 848 (Fed. Cir. 1985)),
96:, 325 F.2d 248, 139 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1963)), and
274:
217:
77:a method for increasing the energy output of
8:
99:a method of controlling the aging process (
281:
267:
224:
210:
103:, 419 F.2d 918, 164 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1970)).
85:, 354 F.2d 395, 148 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1966)),
63:, 433 F.2d 820, 167 USPQ 687 (CCPA 1970)),
137:
192:or its constituent jurisdictions is a
7:
235:
233:
169:
167:
109:person of ordinary skill in the art
253:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
196:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
14:
237:
178:
172:
16:United States patent law concept
70:process for producing energy (
1:
346:
315:United States evidence law
232:
166:
18:
188:This article relating to
126:Sufficiency of disclosure
320:United States patent law
190:law in the United States
121:Industrial applicability
27:United States patent law
330:Nuclear chemistry stubs
325:United States law stubs
249:–related article is a
43:Fregeau v. Mossinghoff
310:Scientific skepticism
31:incredible utility
262:
261:
247:nuclear chemistry
205:
204:
337:
305:Perpetual motion
283:
276:
269:
241:
234:
226:
219:
212:
184:
183:
182:
181:
176:
168:
158:
153:
147:
142:
50:perpetual motion
21:Utility (patent)
345:
344:
340:
339:
338:
336:
335:
334:
290:
289:
288:
287:
231:
230:
179:
177:
171:
164:
162:
161:
154:
150:
143:
139:
134:
117:
54:Newman v. Quigg
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
343:
341:
333:
332:
327:
322:
317:
312:
307:
302:
292:
291:
286:
285:
278:
271:
263:
260:
259:
242:
229:
228:
221:
214:
206:
203:
202:
185:
160:
159:
148:
136:
135:
133:
130:
129:
128:
123:
116:
113:
105:
104:
101:In re Eltgroth
97:
86:
75:
64:
61:In re Houghton
57:
46:
19:Main article:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
342:
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
318:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
298:
297:
295:
284:
279:
277:
272:
270:
265:
264:
258:
256:
252:
248:
243:
240:
236:
227:
222:
220:
215:
213:
208:
207:
201:
199:
195:
191:
186:
175:
170:
165:
157:
152:
149:
146:
141:
138:
131:
127:
124:
122:
119:
118:
114:
112:
110:
102:
98:
95:
91:
87:
84:
80:
76:
73:
69:
65:
62:
58:
55:
51:
47:
44:
40:
39:
38:
36:
32:
28:
22:
255:expanding it
244:
198:expanding it
187:
163:
151:
140:
106:
100:
94:In re Citron
93:
83:In re Ruskin
82:
79:fossil fuels
72:In re Swartz
71:
60:
53:
42:
30:
24:
300:Cold fusion
68:cold fusion
294:Categories
132:References
35:patentable
52:machine (
115:See also
90:cancers
245:This
251:stub
194:stub
25:In
296::
66:a
48:a
29:,
282:e
275:t
268:v
257:.
225:e
218:t
211:v
200:.
92:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
