Welcome to the new version of the Patents Manual. Please note there are changes to the numbering and sequence of the chapters and pages in the manual. You are encouraged to take the time to explore and familiarise yourself with this new structure.

8.7.3.11 Contravention of Laws of Nature - e.g. Perpetual Motion Machines

Date Published

Key Legislation


Key Related Topics 

On this page

  • Other Grounds of Objections
    • Full Description
    • Clarity 
    • Manner of Manufacture

In many countries there is a statutory prohibition of inventions which contravene well-known laws of nature, e.g. perpetual motion machines. However, under Australian law there is no such prohibition.

The fact that an invention is apparently contrary to the laws of nature is likely to be manifested in a lack of utility of the invention. However, lack of utility is not a ground of objection available to examiners prior to acceptance.

Other Grounds of Objection

The following objections may be relevant when an invention contravenes the laws of nature:

Full Description

Where an invention contravenes the laws of nature, or is absurd in view of current knowledge, an objection of lack of full description may be applicable.  Examiners may raise an objection that the specification does not fully describe the invention, since having regard to the known laws of nature, the invention is not capable of performing in the manner described.

Clarity

The claims may contain terms which do not have a technical meaning and there are no plain English meanings associated with those words that would provide for a credible interpretation in view of current knowledge.  In this situation, it is prima facie reasonable to raise a clarity objection.  An example would be where the claims are directed to a new form of matter.

Manner of Manufacture

Inventions that contravene the laws of nature may also be claimed in a form that does not fulfil the requirements of a manner of manufacture.  An example is where a new law of electric induction is referenced in the claims, or if the claims are directed to mathematical equations for new forms of creating energy, or in fact the claims are claiming new forms of matter.  An application rejected on these grounds is Milton Edgar Anderson [2008] APO 19.

Amended Reasons

Amended Reason Date Amended
Back to top