Editing Perpetual motion (section)

== Patents ==
Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant [[patent]]s for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states:
{{blockquote|With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the [[patent examiner|examiner]], but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.<ref name="mpep_608.03">{{Cite book
| title = Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
| edition = 8
| chapter = 600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application - 608.03 Models, Exhibits, Specimens
| date = August 2001
| chapter-url = http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_608_03.htm
}}</ref>}}
And, further, that:
{{blockquote|A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.<ref name="mpep_706.03a">{{Cite book
	| title = Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
	| edition = 8
	| chapter = 700 Examination of Applications II. UTILITY – 706.03(a) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
	| date = August 2001
	| chapter-url = http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_03_a.htm
		}}</ref>}}

The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO will not refuse filings for perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination.<ref name="pressman"/> Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work.<ref name="pressman">{{cite book| title=Patent It Yourself | first=David |last=Pressman | edition=13, illustrated, revised | editor=Nolo | editor-link=Nolo.com | year=2008 | isbn=978-1-4133-0854-9 | page=99 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5KGN1yPzPa8C&q=U.S.+Patent+4,151,431&pg=PA99| publisher=Nolo }}</ref><!--

Dead link not only fails to support the claim, it's a straightforward refutation: The USPTO maintains a collection of [https://web.archive.org/web/20041118233322/https://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/uspc074/sched074.htm Perpetual Motion Gimmicks]. -->

The [[United Kingdom Patent Office]] has a specific practice on perpetual motion; Section 4.05 of the UKPO Manual of Patent Practice states:
{{blockquote|Processes or articles alleged to operate in a manner which is clearly contrary to well-established physical laws, such as perpetual motion machines, are regarded as not having industrial application.<ref name="ukpo">{{Cite web
	| title		= Manual of Patent Practice |at=Section 4
	| publisher		= United Kingdom Patent Office
	| url		= http://www.patent.gov.uk/practice-sec-004.pdf
	| access-date		= 2007-02-13
	| archive-date		= 2007-09-29
	| archive-url		= https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091724/http://www.patent.gov.uk/practice-sec-004.pdf
	| url-status		= dead
	}}</ref>}}
Examples of decisions by the UK Patent Office to refuse patent applications for perpetual motion machines include:<ref>See also, for more examples of refused patent applications at the United Kingdom Patent Office ([[UK-IPO]]), [http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2008/06/uk-ipo-gets-tougher-on-perpetual-motion.html "UK-IPO gets tougher on perpetual motion"], ''[[IPKat]]'', 12 June 2008. Accessed June 12, 2008.</ref>{{self-published inline|certain=y|date=January 2024}}
* Decision BL O/044/06, John Frederick Willmott's application no. 0502841<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/o04406.pdf |title=Patents Ex parte decision (O/044/06) |access-date=2013-03-04 |archive-date=2007-09-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927032544/http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/o04406.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* Decision BL O/150/06, Ezra Shimshi's application no. 0417271<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/o15006.pdf |title=Challenge decision |publisher=patent.gov.uk/ |access-date=2019-11-14 |archive-date=2007-09-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091802/http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/o15006.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The [[European Patent Classification]] (ECLA) has classes including patent applications on perpetual motion systems: ECLA classes "F03B17/04: Alleged perpetua mobilia" and "F03B17/00B: [... machines or engines] (with closed loop circulation or similar : ... Installations wherein the liquid circulates in a closed loop; Alleged perpetua mobilia of this or similar kind".<ref>ECLA classes [https://web.archive.org/web/20090103160859/http://v3.espacenet.com/eclasrch?ECLA=%2Fespacenet%2Fecla%2Ff03b%2Ff03b17.htm%3Fq%3D17-04 F03B17/04] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20090103135412/http://v3.espacenet.com/eclasrch?ECLA=%2Fespacenet%2Fecla%2Ff03b%2Ff03b17.htm%3Fq%3D17-00b F03B17/00B]. Accessed June 12, 2008.</ref>