BRIEF
(Serial No.08/578,325)
IN RE FRANK R. BONCZYK
Frank R. Bonczyk, of Worcester, Massachusetts, submitted Pro Se,
All Rights to Patent are those of
Sole inventor Frank R. Bonczyk
(2) There are no other related cases of appeal and interferences known to appellant.
(3) Status of Claims: Claims rejected: 1, 9, 11, 12, and 14 Claims objected to: 15, and 19
(4) Status of amendments: Examiner did not enter amendments filed subsequent to the final rejection.
(8) I, Frank R. Bonczyk, respectfully appeal the final action dated 01/30/97, to patent application Serial NO. 08/578,325: Filing Date 12/26/95: Art Unit 2506, Titled Fabricated Energy, for reasons provided in the following: For rejection other than those referred to in Paragraph. (c) (8) (i) to (iv) (v) For each rejection under 35 U.S.C 101
-32-
To assert the applicant's structure as being a new and unique tool for one who works the primary field of energy.
The following is a concise explanation of the invention defined in the claims involved in the appeal required by 37 CFR 1.192 (c)(5).
(1) Fabricated Energy: The invention is a fabricated energy structure that shall exploit the underlying mechanism of crystalline structures to cause them to change and replicate toward a desired result. FIG.3 and FIG.5, described in, Description of Preferred Embodiment page 8, lines 11 through 20.
(2) Page 2, lines 1, 2, and 3 of specifications, "This invention relates to fabricated energy structures (root stock) that are particularly useful to tool work in the early stages of pure energy's decay and subsequent assembly for uniform energy" FIG. 3 of Drawings characterizes a schematic view of the invention. Also, a cross sectional taken at section 11 __ 11 of FIG.10 corresponds to exploded view of FIG.3.
(3) Natural Numbers (SNN). The SNS or SNN 202 effect as buds' buried within the 'one unit (structure 10) that the force produced at the location by the broken or interrupted route, force into action. FIG. 3, lines 1 through 6
(4) The invention may be used to preserve the change and/or repair made of life structures, inclusive of the human genome. Whereby, 18+1nf absorbed by Bp's forms structure 577, which preserves the original structure of parent, Bp/Bp' as shown by Crown assembly *L, *R of FIG. 3 in the structure of FIG. 9 and 10 and described in, Description of Preferred Embodiment, Page 12, lines 5 through 11. Sphericals may be accessed at 16, FIG.3 for the repair of stems (shown in phantom) that retains a Crown connection to the strand 12, thus to unified PO. Page7 lines 12 and 13.
-33-
FIG. 4A,clearly shows the timing cycle of the structure in Time (T1,T0) related terms of fixed duration giving movement and structuring function alongside a corresponding Unified PO Realm 33-18. See FIG.4A, and Description of Preferred Embodiment, Page 9, and Lines 18 through 26.
(5) Integration and connection of the inventions structure with other corresponding and non-corresponding structures. Shown in FIG.7 and FIG. 9 and described in, Description of Preferred Embodiment, Page 10, Lines 13 through 24.
(6) Basis of Claim 15 (fifteen) objected to subject to petition: The invention's structure and functions blueprint an architectural design for a type of computer that can emulate the invention.
(7) Basis of Claim 19 (nineteen) objected to subject to petition: The invention signifies a portion of the applicant's work with original singular energy and is important to linking future Dependant Patents. Therefore, to focus the invention toward that end of future dependent patents, this invention must not be redefined for any purpose or reason by anyone other than this inventor.
The following is a concise statement of the issues presented for review as required by 37 CFR 1.192 (c)(6)
Ref: PTO office communication dated, 01/30/97
Examiner: Jack I Berman
Art Unit 2506
-34-
"Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Despite Applicant's attempt to characterize the claimed invention as a "structure" rather than a model, there is still no disclosure of any new composition of matter which could be protected by a patent under the statute. Instead, the claims are directed to a new way of describing something which already exists in nature. To grant a patent on such a description would allow the patent owner to exclude others from using the naturally occurring structure described, not just from using the new way of describing it set forth in the claims. Such exclusion would constitute the removal of the naturally occurring structure from public domain. Patent Law does not permit such removal."
Subject to petition: "Claims 15 and 19 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.759 (c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim."
Argument
1. The statements made in the PTO response dated, 01/30/97, "…a new way of describing…" said, "…naturally occurring structure…" implies the patent office holds incontrovertible proof the invention described is a natural occurring structure of nature. With such proof at hand, the PTO asserts blanket reason to deny the applicant patent protection. Thus, "new physics" appears to exist exclusively in the domain of the Patent Office. Yet, conventional physics understanding that allows E=MC² as the new way of describing existence, holds no such proof. Barring use of PTO's presumptions for want of proof, the applicant's
-35-
structure explained in sequential detail deserves just and fair reconsideration of the inventor's patent rights. Such that the definitions of the applicant must be allowed to stand and move beyond PTO's exclusions based on naïve assumptions of natural occurring existence. Rather than allow an understanding of the invention, the PTO use of the word "attempt" discredits the inventor's effort to redefine what was in the first instant not taken in proper context by the PTO. Whereby the PTO redefines the applicant's "model" by inserting a "theory" definition to characterize the invention-then states the structure (model) already exists in nature. The PTO's statements are contradictory in nature. Blatant semantics jeopardize the applicant's patent rights. Any word used to describe the invention if allowed with the applicant's definition intact, would wholly interpret and qualify the invention as statutory subject matter. Based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 206 USPQ 193 (1980), MPEP (page 1367), 3. "The Act embodied Jefferson's philosophy that 'ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement. 'V Writings of Thomas Jefferson, at 75-76… that Congress intended statutory subject matter to 'include anything under the sun that is made by man.' S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., 5 (1952)." Chakrabarty opinion also reveals, MPEP (page 1368), -"However, the production of articles for use from raw materials prepared by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations whether by hand, labor or machinery (emphasis added) is a manufacture under Section 101." Yet, the PTO persists on ignoring the criteria of existence required by the invention. The PTO's rubber stamp use of pseudo reason to deny the applicant's definitions disregards,
MPEP (page 1371), A. (last paragraph.) "The applicant is in the best position to explain why an invention is believed useful. Office personnel should therefore focus their efforts on pointing out
-36-
statements made in the specification that identify all practical applications for the invention. Office personnel should rely on such statements throughout the examination when assessing the invention for compliance with all statutory criteria. An applicant may assert more than one practical application, but only one is necessary to satisfy the utility requirement. Office personnel should review the entire disclosure to determine the features necessary to accomplish at least one asserted practical application."
And also disregards,
The first paragraph of section 112 states: "…the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention…"
3. To deny patent protection for the applicant's structure, based on the PTO claims, that the structure, "naturally exist in nature," suggest all applicants whoever submits a similar structure or mutation, abstraction, or synthesis of said or similar structure, that exist naturally in nature, would also be denied patent protection. Yet, the PTO readily provides patent protection for synthesis of naturally occurring structures found in nature. However new the ways are used to describe something that exist, the mutation or abstractions of, and synthesis of what exist, cannot be disconnected from what exist naturally in nature.
Reference Cited
5,565,199 Oct., 1996 Page 424/195.1
5,604,213 Feb., 1997 Barrie 513/176
Attachment (2)
-37-
4. To exclude the applicant from patent protection on this structure, then allows those who simply fashion a way to discover, duplicate, copy, synthesize abstracts of such structures similar to the applicant's that do exist naturally in nature discloses inconsistency in PTO rulings. For it is shown by the applicant's detailed structure (which the PTO admits in its own words as being a natural structure existing in nature), the ability to duplicate and mutate is a natural occurrence of all such structures that exists. In order to harness and make use of these natural occurring structures, one must follow exactly the function of energy, else it fails to exist-naturally or otherwise. Questions then arise: How does the PTO discern "naturally occurring existence" from "unnaturally occurring existence?" Does the PTO in a likewise twist they make of the inventor's words also attempt to use a new way to define something which does not already exist in nature, to exclude the applicant from retaining the naturally non-occurring structure from the public domain. Patent law permits such removal as an individual's patent right. Both existence and non-existence occurs in the applicant's disclosure of the structure, a structure the PTO states already exists naturally in nature; and prompts these questions of the PTO: Where does nonexistence exist naturally in existence? Where does the PTO find the inventors Fabricated Energy structure existing naturally in nature other than where the applicant has placed it, to justify denying him his patent Right?
5. The principles of energy functions expressed in the applicant's structural process are void of the numerous free parameters that infest conventional scientific expressions in the arena of sub-particle fields and structures.
Reference Cited
-38-
Paul Langacker, "Particles and Fields -1983 (APS/DPF, Blacksburg VA)" AIP Conference Proceedings Number 112, Subseries on Particles and Fields No.32, American Institute of Physics (1984) pp. 251-252
(Attachment 1)
5. The argument then expends on the semantics of what does and does not exist naturally in nature and ignores what influence the invention has on the nature of existence. The applicant's structure depends fully on the nature of energy - it's function and limitations as described in sequential detail in the application. There is no peer in science to date that can co-ordinate the function of energy to create the applicant's structure. An iota otherwise than explained by the invention fails to create such a structure, nor the results that follows.
6. The labyrinth of free parameters that weaken conventional physics understanding disqualifies any pragmatic conviction by anyone to evoke what does and what does not exist naturally in nature, in order to pass judgement. Otherwise, innocent statements arise whereby nature itself cannot be considered a natural occurrence. For example: In light of the PTO declaring this unique structure presented in the application as a, "natural occurring structure existing in nature," the PTO inadvertently (especially when one considers the arena the applicant's structure thresholds) directs to construe the inventor's structure as 'NATURE', itself. Flattering as this may be for the inventor, the practical aspect must humbly reduce the applicant's structure to the simple tool it is, and provide it patent protection essential to the inventor's further works. (Work unique in the radical mutation of life structures).
-39-
Should the PTO fail to comprehend the subject matter of this invention at this time and denies patent protection, the applicant with limited resources, without further support, goes elsewhere. And leaves his/her so-called naturally occurring structure, as the PTO says, for the public domain to find and make use of.
Grave injustice is done if of a later date the PTO accepts definitions denied this applicant, and allows another applicant patent protection on the very same or similar structure or mutations thereof. Mores are violated if this applicant then be also denied the rewards of his work given up to another applicant's protection by the PTO, who simply copies this applicant's work. What recourse then for this humble and loyal citizen? -- Titans v. Non-Existence?
For the sake of clarity of description, the use of mathematics simply enforces the particular characteristics of energy that are employed in the invention, and nothing more. Whereby, the obvious utility of the invention is revealed.
The inventor deliberately avoids the use of conventional names for elements and structures to identify them, so as not to compromise the invention with features void in the definition associated with those elements and terms. (With reluctant exception, the words photon, meson, etc., were used more as a point of reference to indicate the arena of inventors work, much as one uses the north star, than for their conventional meaning.) Thus, the inventor's due cause disclosed in sequential detail, all functions of those elements and their structure as they are used in the invention.
-40-
The first paragraph of section 112 states: "…the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention…"
Those of ordinary skill in the arts would readily recognize the elements and structures inclusive of the added features by the inventor.
To have the inventor redefine the invention's scope and claims, again would compromise the numerous variable structures the invention is capable of achieving - with or without man's hand, once the structure is placed in a particular environment.
That is: To call the applicants structure a programmable primary life form, or a programmable primary memory system, or a programmable DNA structure, or a programmable biotic computer, would obviously lend to the inventions limitations; or more, to declare the applicant's structure, a structure, "that exist naturally in nature" as the PTO has done, directly calls the invention all of the above and more. Though the applicant's structure threshold's existence, it is, if one of ordinary skill in the art considers the limitations provided in the definitions and claims, would find the invention useful in the manner of application defined by the inventor. To reduce the structure to practical practice involves no more effort than planting a seed and caring for the results.
With respect,
Frank R. Bonczyk, Applicant
31 October 1997
-41-
This page is blank
-42-
APPENDIX
Claims involved in appeal
1. A fabricated energy structure for a uniform energy of the type having a single nature separated to oppose itself by a precise alternate time duration of existence that creates the dual nature for supporting and extending the Fabricated energy comprising a unitary structure of a single Base Particle (Bp) set to a time opposed opposite (Bp') of itself that together provides the functions of energy molded from decayed energy from 'The Unified PO Realm' and including a lattice strand portion in the form of a consequential open strip adapted to curve in attempt to bind at the ends in a trivial or nontrivial bundle to form the ring strand, producing a trivial or nontrivial structure, that will act as an energy root stock, said strand portion including a symbiotic mass assembly portion (rib) at one end thereof as residual, and an integral orthogonal stem portion extending from said strand portion to support and structure one (+) and the other (-) energy nature in the elevated position to monitor, interpret, adapt, maintain other neighboring energy structures and to duplicate of itself
9. A structure in claim 1 wherein said symbiotic mass assembly portion at one end of said strand portion includes an additional residual embedded therein (called super natural __ bud or number).
11. A structure as claimed in claim 1 wherein the (+) and (-) energy nature in the elevated position integrates with corresponding orthogonal (+) and (-) strands, thus also connects to other corresponding energy natures in the elevated position
12. A structure as claimed in claim 11 wherein the corresponding orthogonal (+) and (-) strands, thus also
-43-
connects to other non-corresponding energy natures in the elevated position.
14. A structure as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, which consist essentially of primary life structures in whole and or of their individual parts, advanced life structures in whole and or of their individual parts, biogenic structures in whole and or of their individual parts. Claims objected to subject to petition
15. A structure as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, which consist essentially of computer timing circuits, computer codes, computer algorithms, and or computer programming.
19. A structure as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, which consist of fixed and or variable Symbols, Alpha /Numeric, Electronic/Biotic, Audio/Visual, however structured for the purpose of interpretation, substitution or reproduction of each or any combination of each description and function of said invention to alter the intent and focus of said invention.
Frank R. Bonczyk, Applicant
31 October 1997
-44-
| all rights reserved copyright 1999-2004 | contact us for more information | from our mind to yours | |
 |
|||
