Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/no_to_flying_carpet_patent/

Flying carpet theorist refused a patent

But we've seen it on film!

By OUT-LAW.COM

Posted in Media, 29th October 2006 22:52 GMT

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong, according to a French scientist who claims to have discovered a new magnetic force that appears to support flying carpets and perpetual motion. But Professor Yuly Zagyansky has been refused a patent.

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.

Copyright © 2006, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

OUT_LAW Editor's note: Thanks to the IPKat for bringing this ruling to our attention.

See: