Monday fun: One More for the Hopper

Quite amazing technology.  Mr. Roller’s abstract reads:

Chris Roller wants exclusive right to the ethical use and financial gain in the use of godly powers on planet Earth. The design of godly-products have no constraints, just like any other invention, but the ethnic consideration of it’s use will likely be based on a majority vote of a group, similar to law creation. The commission I require could range from 0-100% of product price, depending on the product’s value and use.

Claim 1.

Godly powers are being used on planet Earth. For example, technology (i.e. Electronic and Medical) is being assisted by godly powers throughout the planet. Godly powers could be used prior, during, and after godly product/procedure. For example; Before–in the making of a device, like a micro-processor chip. During–in the operation of a device, like an inkjet printer cartridge. Afterwards–like gradual scar removal from breast implant surgery. A magician might perform magic before, during, and after, for any given trick (“illusion”).

My question, of course, is why the PTO classified this application as an optical amplifier in Class 359? 

Credit: Patently-O reader Helen Samson (Nufern) ran across this application while scrolling through new optical patent applications.

Background Reading:

24 thoughts on “Monday fun: One More for the Hopper

  1. Dennis,
    I got such a laugh from Reverend Izzo’s application, a great way to start my day.

    Please start a “wack applications” file if you don’t already have one.

  2. It also looks like Rev. Izzo sent $3000 in “Railroad Gold Bonds” (see “Miscellaneous Incoming Letter” dated 5/23/06) along with “$5 billion novelty notes.” But I have yet to figure out why he owed any additional money in the first place. I also love his stamp on the last page: Cryonic Life Insurance Co., Dept of General Resurrection. As a side note, isn’t 18 month publication a wonderful thing? Without that, all we would have to chuckle about are things like centrifugal birthing tables (3,216,423), flatulence powered rockets (6,055,910), Gene Keady’s favorite patent (4,022,227), etc.

  3. Actually, the skirmishing at the OIPE about whether Izzo’s application is complete was almost as funny as the recent substitute spec. I do love the last paragraph of his office action response (showing as a “miscellaneous letter” in PAIR):

    “Please atleast accept a VAGUE claim , like claim number one to avoid abandonment , if you don’t like claim one , please write an allowable vague claim as you find just”

    Maybe I’ll try that on my next rejection. Or not.

  4. Rev. Izzo received a non-final rejection, and filed a substitute specification which is, if anything, more bizzarre than the original The IFW is available on the public PAIR site.

  5. That’s ridiculous beyond words … and yet here I am writing words to try to describe my reaction to it. That poor, poor examiner.

  6. I would think that God’s ethical use of his powers long before the birth of this inventor would be 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) art. This also is a great candidate for the examiner to ask for a model of the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 114. Anybody want to do a 37 CFR § 1.99 Third party submission sending in portions of the King James Bible?

  7. As God I must take issue with a mere mortal usurping my omnipotent powers. I must admit, however, that every now and then I create a lifeform that gets past my quality control procedures. I will take it up as an agenda item at my next board meeting with my subordinates.

  8. Back in the days when George Deutsch was running NASA, the PTO was queried repeatedly as to whether claims drawn to methods of proving that life on earth could not have evolved (and therefore must have been “intelligently designed”) could be patentable, in theory.

    The PTO refused to respond.

  9. Well, never mind – I see that the Copperfield suit was already mentioned. I need some more coffee. Of course if I had godly powers, that would not have happened. I wonder how much Roller is charging for licenses.

  10. He is concerned about others’ non-ethical use of Godly powers, and yet he wants a patent on ethical use.

    Someone should tell him that a patent grants him the right to exclude, not (forcefully) include.

  11. The invention is correctly assigned to Class 359 since the invention is grounded in the underlying technology of rose-tinted glasses through which Mr. Roller derives his self image.

    (See Offenbach, Jacques.)

  12. Because the SPE in class 359 either lost in a classification dispute resolution or in a bet. This is the kind of case that an examiner really doesn’t want. It makes an ordinary case where there is good art and the attorney is fighting like a banshee seem pleasant.

Comments are closed.