Re:Warning, warning! (Score 1)

Don't misunderstand me - I am not saying that the patent has any commercial value. However, to say there is no invention is incorrect. The specific invention has to do with how the flux is controlled, and not whether there is any other use. The criteria as to whether it is patentable does not have anything to do with a specific usefulness at the next level of abstraction. So, it doesn't really matter as to whether there are other ways to accomplish a similar end-result. If this is a new way to do it (novelty), is unique (non-obviousness), and actually works (reduced to practice) - then it probably has some chance of being a patentable invention. In any case - my point was that it was very poor form to insult the patent examiner by calling him names without any real understanding of the patent, or what the patent process really is and does.

Just because the invention does not seem to be useful, does not mean its not an invention. Indeed, sometimes the value of an invention is only seen much latter in light of some other new technology in a totally unexpected way. So - you are totally off base saying there is no invention.