About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


2006 Wis. L. Rev. 1275 (2006)
A Case Study of Inoperable Inventions: Why is the USPTO Patenting Pseudoscience

handle is hein.journals/wlr2006 and id is 1287 raw text is: A CASE STUDY OF INOPERABLE INVENTIONS: WHY IS THE USPTO PATENTING PSEUDOSCIENCE? DANIEL C. RISLOVE* I. Introduction .......................................................... 1276 A. The Problem of Inoperable Inventions ..................... 1276 B. Response to Arguments Against Reform .................. 1278 1. Patenting Inoperable Inventions Harms Consumers. 1279 2. Increased Scrutiny of Patents Will Not Stifle Innovation .................................................. 1281 3. Patentees Are Only Partially to Blame ................ 1282 4. The Problem is Both Legal and Institutional .......... 1283 II. The Legal Standard for Rejecting Inoperable Inventions ..... 1283 A. InoperabilIty and the Substantive Law of Utility ......... 1283 B. Procedural Law Regarding Rejection of Inoperable Inventions ...................................................... 1287 III. Law-in-Action Analysis of the Patenting Procedure ........... 1291 A. The USPTO Lacks Sufficient Institutional Expertise .... 1291 B. Reexamination Makes Inoperability Rejections Difficult 1292 IV . C ase Studies ......................................................... 1294 A. The DKL LifeGuard Patents ................................ 1294 B. The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator ........... 1299 C. The Cold Fusion Patents ..................................... 1302 D. The Puthoff Patent ............................................ 1304 V. Possible Solutions .................................................. 1306 A. Suggested Changes in the Law of Utility .................. 1307 B. Outsourcing the Examination of Difficult Patents ........ 1309 C. Opening the Reexamination Procedure to Inoperability O bjections ...................................................... 1311 V I. C onclusion ........................................................... 1312 * J.D., University of Wisconsin Law School, expected 2007; Ph.D. in Physics, University of New Mexico, 1997. The author would like to thank Katie Mason and especially Brian Kwok for their tireless efforts to suggest editorial improvements to this work.