Friday, December 15, 2006

Second Report of Violation of Science

Registered Mail on 12/15/06 RA156480521BR

General Counsel
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450


It took me two hours to convince an employee of Pennsylvania State University that I would prefer to be expelled from my Ph. D course and sent back home to my country rather than to collect $50 fine of late payment of a ZERO dollar fee. I failed to return a bill in the second semester charging no debt. The issue was not the money or my career, but the CORRECTNESS because sometimes institutions overstep boundaries of their duty. It is like an economic miracle of modern world being charged for not paying a debt of ZERO dollar and I never imagined somebody could do that. As a tolerant and reasonable person I accepted to pay the fine if appropriately corrected expressing my mistake since I was a sponsored student. The fine was cancelled but I knew later that other students paid a similar fine without questioning the coherence.

How long will it take to convince USPTO that common knowledge holding for more than a century in the Text books of Soil Physics need to be honored and respected when approving new patents?

Taking USPTO to the Supreme Court would not solve the issue also. First I do not have millions of dollars to file lawsuits, not even earning to raise my family; second the Justices are not versed in science. I read this from The New York Times on Dec. 5, 2006: When Questions of Science Come to a Courtroom, Truth Has Many Faces - ‘“Troposphere, whatever,” Justice Scalia said. “I told you before I’m not a scientist.” Science is not decided by an impartial jury, but the simple coherent functioning of nature. Science is above The Law deciding what exist in nature and how it works. As matter of fact, Nature does not care about human legal system. Science is untouchable because man cannot overlay Nature. Who would dare to abolish Gravity Law?

A faculty from my thesis committee refused to sign my PhD dissertation unless I removed a statement saying that ‘the soils in the Amazon were the most fertile of all environments for having the highest biomass production’. It does not make sense a soil from a desert being fertile while a soil in a rainforest with three levels of canopy being poor. He coerced me to change my line in order to prevent me from giving a bad idea about Amazon soils for agriculture. We never distort science, not even for ecological reasons. The graduate program rules required me to have signatures of at least two-third of my committee members, so, when I asked him to sign it without changing my statement I already had necessary approval for my dissertation. This faculty today is an Editor of an important journal. He signed my thesis and sent a letter to my advisor saying that I was a difficult person. Indeed it is difficult to be honest not giving in to deviating pressure, demanding the system to be always coherent and fair.

Indeed science if much more than the ‘scientific method’, since before proposing any hypotheses to test it needs a thorough analysis about their coherence toward nature functioning. The quantitative system cannot be unleashed freely to those ones unskilled to open black boxes. The overall sea temperature may not be increasing, but localized climatic anomalies could be the smoking gun that a spatial applied analysis by nonparametric statistic and GIS could capture. Even more, sometimes understanding and comprehension is far more important than proving any evidence, being able to explain the issue and all pertaining interactions. Philosophy provides the guidelines for science, but unhappily I figured out that few PhDs learn about Theory of Science. Just as an example, spreading obesity requires no proof, but a deep understanding on the roots to bring solutions tenable to solve the aggravating problem. Obesity should be solved in some hundreds years down the line when man realizes that providing food is easier that producing it excessively and requesting people to eat moderately, as well as producing machinery to replace human mechanical work and alerting people that their physiology demand their muscles to keep working. This is not a surprise since man had always hunted food during its evolution and now modern society allows food to chase man at every corner and machinery makes man so flaccid and impotent that running away from food is indeed farfetching.

How much can Science and Law prevent man from spoiling its own existence from its blind curiosity and some distorted technological development? What will inventors do to keep man on the course of balance with nature?

USPTO is disrespecting scientific common knowledge of fluid moving on porosity with the following long standing historic profile resting on text books taught in Soil Physics and Hydrogeology:

  1. 1856Saturated Hydraulic Flow; Henry Darcy in France introduced the first conceptions of fluid moving on porosity when he was studying water flow dynamics on sandy filters. He proposed his famous Darcy's Law equation for Saturated Hydraulic Flow: ' the velocity of flow is proportional to the hydraulic gradient'.

  1. 1907Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow: Near a century ago in order to describe water flow through unsaturated soilEdgar Buckingham proposed a modification of Darcy's Law in 1907 trying to describe mathematically fluid flowing on porosity which is above the water table

  1. 1958 - Evaporation from a Water Table: An upward flow from a water table to a bare soil surface was studied by Gardner and Fireman.

  1. 2004Unsaturated/Saturated Hydraulic Flow: US Pat. 6,766,817 p.1 line 65 : 'A fluid that possesses a positive pressure can be generally defined in the field of hydrology as saturated fluid. Likewise, a fluid that has a negative pressure (i.e., or suction) can be generally defined as an unsaturated fluid. Fluid matric potential can be negative or positive. For example, water standing freely at an open lake, can be said to stand under a gravity pull. The top surface of the liquid of such water accounts for zero pressure known as the water table or hydraulic head. Below the water table, the water matric potential (pressure) is generally positive because the weight of the water increases according to parameters of force per unit of area. When water rises through a capillary tube or any other porosity, the water matric potential (e.g., conventionally negative pressure or suction) is negative because the solid phase attracts the water upward relieving part of its gravitational pull to the bearing weight. The suction power comes from the amount of attraction in the solid phase per unit of volume in the porosity'.

Buckingham, E. 1907. Studies of the movement of soil moisture. Bulletin 38. U.S. Department of Agriculture Bureau of Soils, Washington, DC.

Darcy, H. 1856. Les Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon. Dulmont, Paris.

Gardner, W.R. 1958. Some steady state solutions of the unsaturated moisture flow equation with application to evaporation from a water table. Soil Sci.85:229-232.

Gardner, W.R. and M. Fireman, 1958. Laboratory studies of evaporation from soil columns in the presence of water table. Soil Sci. 85:244-249.

Recently the information technology by Internet has changed very deeply increasing accessibility to gather and process information letting all patents be read instantly online. With a few strokes on the keyboard any patent can be thoroughly screened for trends of IP violations when trespassing technical boundaries since their functioning has to be expressed by strong expressive key words unavoidable in the specialized technical writing. This new approach restrains the circumvention of IP limits by shallow technical expressions or optional etymology.

There is a strong continuation on IP violation likely hurting basic principles of Hydrology that any time can be checked online by the word searching bellow (# at Nov. 29, 2006):

  1. Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow ....................................... 3
  2. Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity.........................17
  3. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity ........................... 24
  4. Hydraulic Conductivity ............................................. 404
  5. Capillary pumping ......................................................214
  6. Capillary/capillarity/wick/wicking ................... 93,314
  1. Heat/Thermal Conductivity ................................61,033
  2. Wick/wicking .........................................................21,784
  3. Heat Pipe/Wick ........................................................1,169

It can be observed above that the conduction of heat is mentioned in 61,033 issued patents while the conduction of fluid is mentioned only in 404 issued patents while Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow only 17.

Hydrology has been deeply neglected on patenting affairs since 93,314 issued patents on porosities but only 9 of them measured Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow.

If the massive IP violation in Hydrology regarding the fluid moving on porosity is not prevented the content of US Pat. 6,766,817, 6,918,404, and 7,066,586, may become useless during the patent time showing a malfunctioning of the IP system that disrespects common knowledge and allows distortion from lay people.

Regrettably people behind IP affairs have different attitude of disrespect toward science and knowledge. For example, another party developing a spatial porosity for heat pipe US 2005/0126757 Fig 4 bumped to the same hydrology of US pat. 6,766,817 without any awareness of a deep hydrodynamic functioning of fluids moving on porosity. The patent had just two pages of text and a few lines on hydrology showing that the authors were not aware to the common knowledge of fluids moving on porosity and US pat. 6,766,817 with 32 pages of text explaining deep details important for controlling hydrodynamic properties and increase reliability.

I contacted the company to offer an advanced hydrology long standing on text books of Soil Physics and Hydrogeology. It could promote the technological development on the hydrodynamics side for heat pipes which uses thermodynamics and hydrodynamics to transfer heat. I contacted inventors, the patent attorney prosecuting the patent, and managers for decision making but got no response even from IDS requests that is a due obligation under the Law. This behavior indeed challenges my simple reasoning. Why?

A year later the company contacted me back just after the pat. Application US 2005/0126757 was rejected by USPTO but all parties failed to file my requested IDS under IDS 37 CFR § 1.56 (d). Even the US 2005/0126757 was rejected I think that the Patent Attorney filing it should get the consequences for violating the Law.

I got surprised when the Patent Attorney filing US 2005/0126757 said that he did not file the IDS because he saw that was no conflicting matter. I requested a formal IDS to the inventor, to his boss, and to the Patent Attorney. I checked his professional profile at his homepage and he is just a Mechanical Engineer B. Sc. with a Law School degree. Even the Supreme Court Justice has no proficiency in science, I am curious why he violated IDS 37 CFR § 1.56 (d) as a Patent Prosecutor aware of the rules. We always get advantages by obeying the Law even Laws of Nature.

Why is the soap bubble round?
Just because it is the most energy efficient configuration – Tubarc couldn’t be squared!

This is a very common knowledge in Biological sciences but my feeling is that people working with microfluidics are not aware of such subtle conceptions on nature functioning. Perhaps thousands of patents are useless for not considering such simple principle in nature designing most of the microfluidic geometry squared. The truth is that nature does not like much squared formats since near everything we see around designed by nature has curves.

My point here is that this is the tip of the iceberg showing a system that is highly malfunctioning neglecting Hydrology deeply on the roots more than a century. Does Law School teach Soils Physics and Hydrogeology? How much scientific support does USPTO have internally to ensure that science is not violated when IP is handled?

Pennsylvania State University let me get my PhD and I completed it 3.5 years later with honors and by chance President Bill Clinton was there on my commencement releasing his first speech for reelection on May 10, 1996. He said that some of us would be creating jobs that nobody had ever imagined yet. I may do it Mr. President only if USPTO stop violating science and respect common knowledge resting for decades on the books of Hydrogeology at my PhD. I have this feeling that the President of the US care for higher education. Mr. President I have more patents waiting USPTO mend itself so that the system start rewarding sound science from higher education that you said is important for the future of your nation.

I am disappointed because I do not make money in the last 9 years pursuing a sort of ‘scientific discovery’ hurting my family need. It took 4 years to have my first patent approved and two year later a company that bumped to the same insights with a lousy patent application bearing poor hand drawing having shallow approach making around ₤8 billion a year and hiring thousand of employees is refusing to pay IP rights stepping over the Law and disrespecting science and knowledge. I do not understand why they want so much money since when they die everything is left behind. Well, there are others doing the same approach of never paying anything at any cost unless as the last option.

Perhaps, people behind IP and Law need to understand that invention is not the art of creating different names for the same existing objects in order to get Patent numbers. When a fluid moves through porosity it is called Saturated Hydraulic Flow since 1856, when it moves through porosity under negative pressure it is called Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow since 1907. When a fluid moves upward to a flame on a wick it can be called wicking as the hydrology of oil lamps by lay people. Wicks that fail on oil lamps betray Etymology. US pat. 6,766,817 is the first patent to mention the expression ‘Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow’ near 100 years later after it appeared on scientific literature (at least from the present search).

I am a PhD with a strong background of Philosophy of Science. Knowledge cannot be destroyed and canceling my patents would not erase the knowledge revealed by them mainly the huge technological gap dealing with new conceptions in hydrodynamics. Every week I can keep track of patenting approvals and violation of science. All violation notice letters and related documents are available on line at

The hydrological gap is huge since 93,314 issued patents on related fluids moving on porosity (wick/wicking/capillary/capillarity) extensively failed to apply deep knowledge from Soil Physics and Hydrogeology like measuring fluid conductibility by Hydraulic Conductivity as well as to model porosity and take advantages of hydraulic zones.

My suggestion to USPTO is to hire many PhDs. with strong background in Theory of science so they can learn the boundaries of knowledge and precise limit of Metaphysics portraying the achievement of existence of objects. I have doubts if Law schools teach that because even high education in the US is giving PhD diplomas to people that are not attending disciples of Philosophy of Science since I had to school myself on the subject. It is very likely that people earning a PhD degree become philosophy doctors without mastering philosophy of science.

Anybody around the world by internet can read and check all patents at the USPTO faster than standing up and opening a book in a shelf. USPTO should consider the fact that science and technology is under a strong revolution by information technology that allows important information to move fast and be crossed and understood far beyond possibilities a few years ago. This outcome leads to a trend that a good science prevails since cheating and distortions become easy to detect, document, notify, and correct.

I refuse to believe that I should have paid a fine of $50 for late payment of ZERO dollars. I refuse to believe that USPTO is not going to honor common knowledge of fluids moving on porosity from the text books I earned a PhD. When advanced updated Hydrology is enforced by USPTO there is a chance that in less than 18 years some positive result may come out since science is very strong rewarding coherence because nature principles are resilient.

I could quit this project and do something else in my life if what I learned at Penn State University is not valid and respected by USPTO. The problem is, what will USPTO tell millions of students in the US that their text books may not be considered on IP affairs? What will USPTO tell thousands of professionals in Hydrology that their area is being distorted by lay people with shallow or not enough knowledge to develop the full extent of applied hydrology even after my official written complaint it seems that nothing is coming to fix a persistent violation of science? Should I believe that American President was there just pretending on my commencement?

I happen to be a knowledgeable person and I have no interest in getting rewards after my death like Van Gogh who was a great painter living a miserable life never selling anything till he killed himself at the age of 37. I can wait 18 years to have my patents licensed in case advanced hydrology of fluids moving on porosity can provide a technological edge to many fluidic devices, but USPTO should stop violating science immediately and honor common knowledge on text books and my issued patents.

It is uncomfortable being incisive with my rights as a PhD for reporting violation of science and demanding due correction. I believe all parties filing patents for devices in hydrological applications of fluid moving on porosity are not hiring professionals with appropriate background in Hydrogeology or Soil Physics to fully understand and apply common knowledge already available as well as take advantages of claims at my patents. I could be more tolerant if I were getting some reward and be able to raise my family decently but it seems that the overall policy trend is never paying unless they must do it in the last instance. It is time to cancel thousands of patents and expel dishonest people that should not be there working with IP affairs. Nature never forgives mistakes because all missteps can lead to the ground for disrespecting gravity and inertia laws.

When I get a due economic reward from my ‘scientific discovery’ I will reapply to Tubarc Technologies, LLC helping develop around 100,000 new patents which can use an advanced hydrology standing on text books for a long time and replace around 90,000 useless issued patents than never gauged spatial dynamics of fluid conductivity and other important features to turn products more reliable having innumerous advantages to consumers.

It does hurt when sound and long standing scientific knowledge being desecrated by narrow-minded laypeople curbing a technological development for meaningless profitability having a negligent institution behind it that their president may not endorse.

I do have more patents ready for filing in case a positive response results as the system mends itself becoming able to reward good deeds. One of them is on energy cycle saying that energy in the organic matter can be converted to rotating power curbing obesity and providing fuel to move machinery. Why to produce alcohol if the whole plant could have its energy harvested? A solution to last till the sun shines in the sky, when electromagnetic radiation harvested by photosynthetic biology is converted continuously to rotation by a curving geometry.

Nature gives simple solutions to wise people that respect the principles. I am not an inventor, just a scientist that borrows some insights from Nature to make human lives more humane because life goal is not packing wealth, but developing happiness and balance till the end of each cycle that never stops.

Wick/wicking is a terminology of lay people and capillary/capillarity is a former boundary of science that advanced Hydrology is demanding from now forward a change in a gap long neglected. “Capillary pumping” is a flaw and breach to vocabulary precision, etymology, and common knowledge at Soil Physics.

Perhaps it is time for USPTO not only canceling thousands of patents but also to learn that invention is an activity highly dependent on understanding deeply boundaries of knowledge (Epistemology) and what really exists in the universe (Metaphysics) and the progression of technological advancement (History) as well as the best way to express everything (Logics). Law schools do not teach science, but graduate programs for PhD also need some special attention to Philosophy of Science when educating Philosophy Doctors.

Lawyers think that diversion of vocabulary is a tool to avoid IP conflicting by having multiple ways to say the same thing while science demands conversion of vocabulary toward precision employing strong and deep technical words to better express the core of the principles in order to achieve high loyalty to Nature functioning. It is not a surprise that Tubarc (US pat. 6,766,817) is the first patent to fully employ the expression ‘Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow’ hanging on scientific literature of Soil Physics near a century. It is evident that Lawyers are perverting science on IP affairs simply because they are no scientists. A Patent Attorney was trying to take me to court because I was delivering an IDS to him by email on spam grounds.

Can I be sued for asking people to obey The Law?

Is USPTO going to sue me or cancel my patents because of my reports of scientific violations neglecting common knowledge on my text books that are a century old?

Sometimes I try to find ways to convince myself that I am just a stupid person, but I never find grounds for it. I ran two half-marathons during my PhD and I eat lots of fruits having a BMI of 23.5. I’m not even a nerd since I am married and have three children. I was coerced once when my due job was wasted and I said that there is no other way to protect my family unless for being honest.

I have no problems facing the consequences of my honesty, even if my issued patents cannot reward my work since it is worth trying.

Kind regards,

Campinas, Brazil, December 14, 2006

Elson Silva, Ph. D.
Tubarc Technologies, LLC
Av. Dr. Júlio Soares de Arruda, 838 Parque São Quirino
CEP 13088-300 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
Phone 55 *19 3256-7265

No comments: