P3D Re: Patents

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:59:58 -0600
>From: John Toeppen <toeppen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Patents

>Reduction to practice is not required. 

Do you mean "reduction to practice" in a generic sense, or in whatever
strict legal interpretation the term may have?

>Patented items need not work.  

OK, suppose I file a patent application describing a processing method by 
which a regulation basketball is lightly dusted with powdered sugar, at which
point it reduces in volume to the size of a golf ball, permitting it to be 
easily transported, and when the powdered sugar is brushed off, the basketball
returns to its original volume?

That's certainly novel, useful, and "not of an obvious nature". The only
problem is that it doesn't work. (Well, I haven't actually tried it, but
for this hypothetical scenario, let's assume that it doesn't work.) Would
the patent officials really be likely to smile benevolently and approve
the patent?

[Several people on P3D have strongly asserted that there's *no* requirement
for workability or evidence (or logical argument) for workability. If that's
strictly correct, then it does not appear that PTO would have the discretion
to deny the "basketball" patent.]

John R


------------------------------