T 1977/10 - Perpetuum mobile

EPO T 1977/10

For the decision, click here

Key points

• The appeal is against the refusal of an application for, essentially, a kind of perpetual motion machine using permanent magnets
• The board refuses under Article 83 (rather than Article 57 EPC).
• The Board cites Wikipedia for "conservation of energy".
• Although the claim is directed to a "rotor for magnetic motor", the Board interprets the claim as if it specifies not just a rotor for a magnetic motor, but a magnetic motor comprising a rotor and a stator. The Board then notes that a motor is defined as a " device that creates motion", and finds that the claimed device can not create motion and hence could not act as a motor. The Board then concludes that the claim, therefore, does not meet Article 83 EPC. 
• If the claim would not have recited "for magnetic motor", but only the structural arrangement of the magnets, Article 57 EPC would have been appropriate as a ground for refusal, in my view.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. Contested decision

The applicant's appeal contests the examining division's decision to refuse Euro-PCT application [....]

Claim 1 reads as follows:

"1. Rotor for magnetic motor, formed by magnets (2) and material (4) that orientates the magnetic field, both elements forming groups arranged around a shaft (5), in the radius of the external circumference of the rotor (1) body, separated by a distance; the immobile stator (3) is close to the external circumference of the rotor (1) body, with the axis of the stator being orthogonal to the rotor radius and parallel to the rotation plane of the rotor; the rotor magnets (2) have an only magnetic pole on the flat faces with the largest surface area; characterized because each group of the rotor (1) is formed of at least one magnet (2), which has one face with the two magnetic poles facing the stator (3), and a group of the rotor with several magnets (2) has its magnets arranged one after the other with the magnetic poles of the flat faces with the largest surface area in attraction, on a circular, spiral, staggered or oblique line; the material (4) that orientates the magnetic field is placed on the side of the face of the magnet (2) at the end of the group closest to the stator (3), and the material (4) is placed on the side of an only magnetic pole."  [...]

Reasons for the Decision

1. Clarity, Article 84 EPC

1.1 Whilst claim 1 is directed to a "Rotor for magnetic motor", it does not just define the rotor itself - it also specifies the relationship between the rotor and the stator of the magnetic motor, see for example:

- "the immobile stator (3) is close to the external circumference of the rotor (1) body, with the axis of the stator being orthogonal to the rotor radius and parallel to the rotation plane of the rotor";

- "each group of the rotor (1) is formed of at least one magnet (2), which has one face with the two magnetic poles facing the stator (3)"; and

- "the material (4) that orientates the magnetic field is placed on the side of the face of the magnet (2) at the end of the group closest to the stator (3)".

Given that the motor and its stator are not defined as part of the claimed subject-matter, the Board finds that the above-mentioned features of claim 1 are not clear in the sense of Article 84 EPC.

1.2 The Board considers that if any sense is to be made of the above features, claim 1 has to be interpreted as if it specifies not just a rotor for a magnetic motor, but a magnetic motor comprising a rotor and a stator.

2. Sufficiency of Disclosure, Article 83 EPC

2.1 According to the application, the invention concerns the technical area of magnetic motors (see paragraph [0001] of the published English translation). The stated problem is that in such a magnetic motor, a "rotor with [permanent] magnets shows difficulty of interaction with a stator formed by permanent magnets, since repulsion takes place at one end of the magnet, while there is attraction at the other end. The problem is that the rotor cannot escape from the attraction of a magnetic pole" (see paragraph [0003]). According to paragraph [0004], the rotor of the present invention interacts with a stator which has permanent magnets and according to paragraph [0016] the application of the present invention is "for magnetic motors whose stator is formed by permanent magnets".

2.2 It seems to be generally understood that a "motor" is a mechanical or electrical device that creates motion (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor).

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant - it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy).

It follows from this well-established physical law that a motor can only create motion (i.e. create kinetic energy) if it is provided with a supply of energy in some form.

2.3 In a device which has only a rotor and a stator, each consisting only of permanent magnets there is no supply of energy. Hence, the Board concludes that such a device could not create motion, i.e. it could not act as a motor. For this reason, the Board concurs with the finding in the contested decision that the alleged invention is not disclosed in the application as filed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by the person skilled in the art, contrary to Article 83 EPC.

3. Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, the Board finds that the application does not meet the requirements of the EPC and that there is no reason to set aside the contested decision as requested.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.