Rislove: WHY IS THE USPTO PATENTING PSEUDOSCIENCE?
procedural hurdles imposed on the USPTO by current case law and to institutional
problems with the patenting process that make inoperability rejections
the exception rather than the rule.
Yes, Rislove cites Newman v. Quigg: The case of Newman v. Quigg illustrates the restraint of courts in directly applying scientific principles as a matter of law. n79 The invention in Newman involved a machine, which inventor Joseph Newman claimed to have "an energy output greater than the energy input" apparently caused by "gyroscopic type energy particles." n80
Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
footnote 80: The Newman case became a cause celebre among
conspiracy theorists after Newman appeared on the CBS Evening News [Dan Rather] on January 11, 1984. Robert L. Park, Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud 5 (2000). His patent rejection eventually attracted the attention of several members
of Congress, who held hearings to determine whether or not to force the
USPTO to grant Newman a patent. Id. at 102-05. Unfortunately, Newman withered
under the questioning of Senator John Glenn of Ohio, thus preventing further
congressional attention to his case. Id. at 105-06.
Rislove does not mention the hydrino. Rislove does mention cold fusion: In re Swartz n233 and In re Dash. n234