Appeal No. 2006-0970
Application No. 10/293,826
We note that the appellant’s disclosure admits that the technical basis for the lift
provided by the structure described by Hagen is the Biefeld-Brown effect, and that the
device the appellant used in the video demonstrations had every appearance of being
an embodiment of the device described by Hagen [See disclosure p. 15]
Although Hagen, in 1964, characterized the underlying principle as electric
discharge [See col. 1 lines 40-46], other teachings have shown the inherency of the
Biefeld-Brown basis for the operation of Hagen’s device. In particular, as to the
scientific principles behind the thrust inherent from the operation of Hagen’s device,
we note that Brown 2 described the qualitative aspects of the Biefeld-Brown effect upon
devices such as Hagen’s [See col. 1 lines 25-35] and the beneficial effects of enhancing
ions around the plates [See col. 5 lines 59-67] in 1960. Naudin 1 and 2 teach how the
Biefeld-Brown effect accounts for Hagen’s ionized particles interaction with air [compare
to Hagen col. 3 lines 47-65] Campbell describes how Hagen’s de facto capacitor having
two plates of differing geometries further creates thrust that induces movement. [See
col. 1 lines 35-55]
As to claim 27, Foote teaches the use of a tower [See Fig. 1 tower carrying
microwave antenna] to inductively supply a pulsating direct current to the inductive
transformer
The antenna 22 directs and focuses a high-powered microwave beam
onto the aircraft 26, which is converted into DC power by a rectenna
[See col. 7 lines 44-46]
We note that Foote defines a rectenna as a combination of antenna and rectifier
[See col. 1 lines 45-48]
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007