Professor Zagyansky first applied for a patent more than five
years ago. The European Patent Office (EPO) rejected his
application for failing to describe a patentable invention.
Zagyansky appealed, pointing out that the EPO had failed to find
any evidence of prior art – and therefore that his 'invention'
should be patentable.
The European Patent Office (EPO) disagreed. The absence of prior
art is irrelevant, it reasoned, if an application makes no sense.
It simply could not understand what Professor Zagyansky was talking
about in what he called a "revolutionary scientific theory of
century (sic)."
Even the title of Zagyansky's invention is bewildering:
"Einstein-Bohr end: new atomic scale physics, electric field:
neutrinos and electrons in conversion, perpetuate motion.
Development: seisms extinguished volcans, created islands, big-bang
energy."
Among the claims: "The process of the elemination of the
electric and gravitational fields characterized in that one
eliminates (or almost eliminates) the electric or gravitational
field in eliminating the electronic neutrinos and antineutrinos of
the corresponding surrounding space with the help of the T-rays,
transforming them into the electrons and positrons, easily
eliminable/for, for instance, the Perpetual Motion Machine in
separating the charges without the work and re-putting the field or
for the 'Flying Carpets' of the transport/according to Claims 4
(6,7)."
Whatever that means, the EPO's Board of Appeal decided it was
more theory than invention. An office for granting patents cannot
be a discussion forum for new physical theories unless these are
unambiguously proven, are of a technical nature and capable of
industrial application, it said.
A previous application from the Professor discusses 'Aeroplane
Carpets', perpetual motion and evidence of other universes.
Editor's note: Thanks to the IPKat for bringing this
ruling to our attention.
