News and Comment ...a Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Newman's J 'Energy Machine' he federal court of appeals deci- Winter 1986-87, pp. 114-116). sion on Joseph W. Newman's That court, as a result, ruled that T"energy generation system" has Newman's machine was unpatentable. been out for some time, but a reading Newman's lawyers appealed. of the full text reveals how decisive In a wide-ranging ruling (Newman was the ruling against the maverick v. Quigg, No. 88-1312, July 5, 1989), inventor. the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals You may recall that Newman is the affirmed the district court's ruling. It Lucedale, Mississippi, inventor who also said the district court did not err claimed to have made a device with in rejecting the special master's recom- higher energy output than input. He mendation that the patent be issued went on many national talk-shows and instead ordering the NBS study, publicizing the "Newman energy "which did not verify results claimed machine." He said it would solve the by the inventor." And it said the world's energy problems and replace inventor "had waived any right to now all current forms of energy produc- challenge alleged defects in test tion. His claims garnered more pub- protocol." licity than any other "perpetual In his appeal, Newman had argued motion" claim in recent memory. He that the NBS evaluation was defective had testimonials from some scientists because all tests were conducted with and even had managed to get an the device grounded. He stated that endorsement by a former commis- it was essential that his device not be sioner of the U.S. Patent Office who grounded during operation. The court was appointed a Special Master by a of appeals would have none of it. (The federal court. district court had heard these argu- Nevertheless a federal district ments as well; it had held that the NBS court for the District of Columbia test procedures were appropriate, and insisted that the National Bureau of their results "dispositive.") Standards make a detailed examina- "We need not decide whether the tion of the machine and determine NBS tests were conducted by a flawed whether it in fact produced more procedure, for any flaw could have energy than it took in. The NBS study been, and was not, corrected by Mr. concluded that it did not: "At all Newman at the time of the tests," conditions tested, the input power states the court of appeal's ruling. ". exceeded the output power. ." (51, . Mr. Newman does not dispute 226 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 14 that he had a copy of the test protocol Newman then argued that the court before testing began. The record gave undue weight to the NBS tests shows no communication or objection. and failed to give overriding weight The commissioner further points out to testimonials and affidavits support- that the patent specification does not ing the claimed increase in energy mention the need to avoid grounding output. the device. "The court described the evidence "We conclude that Mr. Newman on Newman's behalf as 'largely qual- had a duty to raise objection, before itative rather than quantified by or during testing, to any defects in the measured data,' while 'credit[ing] in test protocol.... He had a clear chance full the meticulously thorough and to obtain a definitive test, and to the well-documented testing done by extent that he did not take it, he can NBS.' . The court remarked that not now impeach the results that were at best Mr. Newman's evidence conducted by procedures of which he showed prolonged operation on dry had advanced knowledge. If there cell batteries, but that 'such a device were flaws in the NBS protocol, we is not the one for which Newman do not now give controlling weight to seeks a patent.' We discern no error objections that could have been raised in the district court's analysis, and at a time when any errors could have conclude that the court did not clearly readily been corrected." err in giving controlling weight to the The appeals court notes that "the NBS report and in concluding that the district court, on trial of the merits, utility claimed for Newman's device held Mr. Newman's invention unpat- had not been demonstrated." entable under 35 U.S.C. 101 because The appeals court also upheld the 'Newman's device lacks utility (in that district court's argument that New- it does not operate to produce what man had failed to explain how to he claims it does).' " It notes that achieve the claimed results. "While it |I~ijuirer Spring 1990 227 is not a requirement of patentability ameliorate fear and uncertainty. that an inventor correctly set forth, "Astrology was simply one of the or even know, how or why the ways I coped with the fear I felt after invention works, neither is the patent my husband almost died in the assas- applicant relieved of the requirement sination attempt [on March 30,1981]." of teaching how to achieve the claimed She was haunted by concerns about result, even if the theory of operation the "so-called 20-year death cycle for is not correctly explained or even American presidents." (For more than understood.... The district court held a century, every president elected, or that Mr. Newman's claimed device and re-elected, in a year ending in zero had method do not produce the claimed died in office.) Night after night she result, following the teachings of the agonized over the president's safety. specification. We affirm that conclu- "When you're as frightened as I was, sion. you reach out for help and comfort "The decision of the district court in any direction you can." that the claimed invention is unpat- The most poignant and, in seeing entable because it fails to comply with its effects on her, most despicable 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility, and incident in the astrology section of the with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, book reveals how she was made to feel for lack of enablement, is affirmed." she could have prevented the 1981 The court, in so affirming, said each shooting of Ronald Reagan, if only she party shall bear its own costs. New- had been attuned to the astrological man has since announced that he will bad vibes. Here is a view of believers take his case to the U.S. Supreme in astrology playing on the fears of Court. a scared and vulnerable person. Television producer Merv Griffin, —Kendrick Frazier an old friend from the Reagans' Hollywood days, called her one after- noon and told her of Joan Quigley, a San Francisco astrologer. She had met Astrology in Quigley once before and had had several calls from her during the 1980 the White House: presidential campaign, where Quigley Nancy Reagan's View volunteered her advice about "good" and "bad" times for Mr. Reagan. "I remember my reaction as if it ancy Reagan's book My Turn were yesterday to what Merv now (Random House, 1989) gives told me on the phone. He had talked N for the first time in her own to Joan, who had said she could have words her version of the international warned me about March 30. Accord- controversy set off in 1988 over her ing to Merv, Joan had said: 'The use of astrology in the White House President should have stayed home. (SI, Fall 1988). One can almost feel I could see from my charts that this sympathy for the former First Lady was going to be a dangerous day for as she recounts her concern about her him.' husband's safety. With a sophistica- " 'Oh my God,' I remember telling tion about such matters obviously no Merv. 7 could have stopped it!' I hung more advanced than that of millions up the phone, picked it up again and of other Americans, she tells how she called Joan." Quigley repeated her turned to astrology as a way to claim that she could see the day the 228 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 14 shooting happened was a very bad day WALL STREETS NOSEDIVE for him. (Presumably this was an Will History Repeat Itself? after-the-fact "insight.") "Joan was a good listener, and she responded with the warmth and compassion 1 needed." Nancy Thus started their relationship. Reagan's Quigley soon suggested Mrs. Reagan let her know when the president planned to travel. She would then call 'My and tell her if those were bad or good days. "Well, I thought, what's the Turn' harm in that? And so, once or twice a month I would talk with Joan. On Astrology I would have Ronnie's schedule in On Don Regan On Raisa front of me, and what I wanted to On Her Kids know was very simple: were specific dates safe or dangerous?" Once Quigley got back to her with the information, Mrs. Reagan would, if necessary, call Michael Deaver, who Nancy Reagan's story about her use of was in charge of the president's astrology appears in her book My Turn and schedule, and later Donald Regan, the in Newsweek excerpts. president's chief of staff. "Sometimes a small change was made. While She says her relationship with astrology was a factor in determining Quigley "began as a crutch," but Ronnie's schedule, it was never the "within a year or two, it had become only one, and no political decision was a habit," and she didn't see the need ever made based on it." to change, "because while I was never Mrs.