STATE OF MARYLAND

The undersigned, being duly deposed, swears and states that:

My name is Paul L. Gomory, I live at 5609 Ogden Road in Bethesda Maryland. I was born in Newark, New Jersey and attended schools in Hungary, Austria, France, and England. Studied chemistry and engineering at the University of London, England and at Polytechnic Institute in New York City. I have an Inter-Science degree, University of London, England and that subsequent to the studies leading to that degree I studied Advanced Physics at King's College, University of London, England. I hold a law degree from Temple University School of Law and am a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and a number of lower state courts and federal courts.

The recently enacted patent law revision bill is one of several on which I have worked assiduously having testified on it and others on behalf of the Association for the Advancement of Invention and Innovation (A^2I^2) and on my own behalf. I was a Director and Advisor contact on the Hill and Public Relations person. I drafted a number of bills which have been introduced in the U.S. Senate as well as in the House of Representatives, and have secured the introduction of the American Patent Law Association bill presented to the 94th Congress. I am an ex-officio member of the National Council on Patent Law Associations.

I have chaired a number of committees in the American Bar Association, the District of Columbia Bar Association, and in the American Patent Law Association. These committees have been related to various legislation activities including public relations and public information. I have acted as liaison between the D.C. Bar Association, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Section of the District of Columbia Bar Association and was for many years a member of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and its Subcommittee on Divestiture which I conceived and formation of which I instigated. I have worked with a large number of other associations including NAM, CMA, PMA, MAPI, ATA, etc.

I have been involved intimately in chairing committees, including patent law committees, in drafting bills introduced in the Congress and responsible for drafting several patent law revision bills including S.4259, 93rd Congress; S.214 Fong, 94th Congress Fong; HR14632 Wiggins, 94th Congress; HR 5075 Butler, 96th Congress --- the patent reexamination procedure now in effect in the PTO first appeared in Fong S.4259.

I have authored a number of legal briefs for the United States Supreme Court, as well as articles on political and legal subjects, including Trade Secret Law, Freedom of Information Act, Intellectual Property Law, and Government Patent Policy.

I have reviewed the specification of the above identified Application [by Joseph Westley Newman] with particular reference to the related embodiments of Figures 5 and 6 and the disclosures on pages 24-35 concerning inter-alia the "working prototypes" built and to be built in the form of those figures.

In the interest of not being repetitious and lengthy, let me simply state I also found the embodiments of Figs. 5 and 6 simple to understand and that I also believe that from Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] instructions given in his specification, I would build a device similar to the one I viewed at the Hospitality House, across from the U.S. Patent Office, the same one which the Board will see and inspect. My conclusions on reading the specification is basically as already described in point 3 of page one through point 5 of page three of attorney Pugh's Declaration listed as Exhibit 2 in the Appeal Brief before the Board as well as the description given in second paragraph of page two through fourth paragraph of page four of attorney Renneker's Affidavit listed as Exhibit 1 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

The major question being: Does the teaching and instructions of Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] specification become verified or disproven with factual demonstrations given relative to his teachings and instructions?

It is apparent that the teachings of Applicant [Joseph Newman] are either true or false. The Examiner has taken the position that Applicant's teachings were false, therefore, the invention would not function as claimed and therefore one could not build the invention, and [he] quoted rejection under 35 USC 112 (first paragraph).

The Examiner in his final action of page 2 stated, Quote: "...that rotor 300, allegedly weighing approximately four hundred pounds, is driven EXCLUSIVELY by motor coil 305, allegedly energized by a mere 126 volts and 99 milliamperes." Unquote. It is obvious the Examiner chose to disbelieve that such a massive rotor could be driven by such low wattage, if indeed such even existed.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] distinctly teaches the more larger [the] diameter and longer the coil 205 or 305, the greater the magnetic field and less current used, and coupled with a stronger magnetic field of magnet 200 or 300, the greater would be the energy output relative to energy input.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] distinctly teaches and instructs in the specification the correctness of his invention and that the teachings of the prior art are not correct.

Again, it is obvious to the Examiner, on page 3 of his final rejection, chose to disbelieve Applicant's teachings and instructions, Quote: "While applicant may certainly propound his own theories of operation of his invention, more proof of operativeness than has been presented here is required if the device is alleged more than 100% efficient." Unquote.

It is a well known fact that the prior art teaches the electrical energy produced by a battery or generator is used up in the system which it operates, whether being lights, motors, heating elements and etc. and/or causing a release of energy of any type.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] in his specification clearly teaches against such prior art (see pages 16 thru 21 of his specification, especially see pages 19 thru 21).

On this day Applicant [Joseph Newman] showed and demonstrated to me a simple demonstration that his teachings are correct and that the electrical energy produced from a generator or battery is not used up in the system it operates. At first this goes against common sense because of what we have been taught!

Applicant [Joseph Newman] used a permanent magnet D.C. motor as a generator. He demonstrated that the resistance of the copper windings of the generator was only 3 ohms. Therefore, he demonstrated the so-called work load would be nil if the two leads from the generator were connected, and the generator shaft were then rotated by hand (pulling a cord wrapped around a 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to shaft of generator). I was asked to then pull the cord lightly once and then briskly. I immediately experienced noticeable resistive force the harder I pulled the cord, although there was no conventional work load hooked in the system. Applicant mechanically explained these results by his teachings of gyroscopic particles; that when the atoms of the rotating coils of the generator hit the gyroscopic particles (at some degree of a right angle) which were being emitted from the atoms of the permanent magnets in the generator, that the gyroscopic particles then went down the length of copper wire coils (but that their gyroscopic spin would then be at some degree of a right angle to the balance of the spin of the gyroscopic particles still moving in the magnetic field from the permanent magnets), therefore when the leads were hooked together this then allowed the gyroscopic particles to then try to re-enter the influences of said gyroscopic particles of said permanent magnets, but that their spin would be at some degree of a right angle to one another, therefore they try to push away from each other, resulting in the coils of [the] generator then having resistance to rotation. And that this effect was multiplied the faster you turned the coils, because then the more gyro-particles you would cause to be released from said permanent magnetic field, resulting in an ACCUMULATIVE EFFECT of gyro-particles in the closed system (coils), then trying to re-enter the influence of gyro-particles moving in said magnetic field of said permanent magnets and therefore would always more vigorously resist your acceleration of the coil and its shaft of the generator, although there was no conventional work load placed in the system.

Then Applicant [Joseph Newman] attached work load of six small miniature motors in series to the two leads of the generator (the resistance or conventional work load placed in the system was then considerably greater). Applicant now asked me to again pull the cord as I had previously done. I must say I was amazed to find that the resistance to me rotating the shaft of the generator was dramatically reduced; although all six motors run when I pulled the cord and was producing obvious work.

If, as the prior art so persistently teaches, the Electrical Energy produced by a generator or battery is used up in the work load which the system operates, then why should I observe these results? As Applicant [Joseph Newman] pointed out, the conventional words "Shorted Out" does not mechanically explain the results. However, his teachings and instructions do mechanically explain the results.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] explained that when the work load of six motors in series was placed in the system, the same number of gyro-particles were released from the field of the permanent magnet by the coils of the generator (relative to equal speeds of rotation of shaft) but that now, because of the work load (resistance), they could not easily re-enter into the gyro-particles of said magnetic field of said permanent magnets, and therefore resulted in hydraulic effect back to their source and throughout the work load of the motors, resulting in the motors rotating and producing obvious work and yet causing me less energy input, and Applicant [Joseph Newman] pointed out, that once the gyro-particles managed to get through the work load of the motors, then they would still go back into the generator and cause me to experience a resistive force, (as result of prior explanation). Therefore, based off Applicant's teachings, one does not want the electric current to get back to the source of its beginnings, whether battery or generator. And that, contrary to prior art teachings, the electrical current is NOT used up in the work load! But that the input of a work load causes LESS destruction of a battery or LESS energy input into a generator. Exactly as Applicant teaches in his specification. Applicant also points out that the prior art teaches [that] copper is "nonmagnetic," and, contrary to this, Applicant teaches throughout the specification concerning Figs. 5 and 6 that copper is extremely magnetic. So much so that an individual is easily fooled into thinking copper is nonmagnetic, simply because the magnetic field will disappear so quickly when the current is turned off.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] also vigorously teaches that the Energy in the field of force of any type magnet is the Energy which makes up the atoms of the material from which it comes. It is literally Einstein's Equation of E=mc^2. (See lines 19 thru 26 of page 29 of Applicant's specification.]

It is obvious throughout Applicant's specification that he teaches and instructs in how to achieve a startling difference in kind rather than one of mere degree! And that his teachings are impressively reinforced by the extensive teachings of the Disclosure Document which is part of his patent application.

The total proof, however, is easily seen in his demonstrations, in that they do EXACTLY as he teaches and instructs in his specification! Example: As described above in the generator and miniature motor demonstration given me. And then Applicant showed me the inner workings of his 700-pound motor coil 305 and 90-pound magnet 300 (which is covered and secured together with fiberglass) and its associated generator coil 306 of approximately 200 pounds. Then demonstrations were given as to its operability as follows:

1. Applicant [Joseph Newman] again pointed out to me his statement made in lines 4 thru line 15 of page 29 of his specification. On seeing this above prototype, I agreed it was indeed a "Rube Goldberg" built device, no precision. Both ends of the coil are open allowing magnet 300 to have weak magnetic interaction across the open ends of the coil 305, the magnet 300 is mounted in a 2 by 6 inch wood frame, the entire unit was built by hand in the backwoods of Mississippi, and looks as if it were. The magnet 300 looks massive as does motor coil 305 and the noticeable open space between magnet 300 and motor coil 305 adds to the inefficient-looking design. Compared to any other prior art, efficiently-designed motor of close tolerances and conventional sizes, the Newman motor looked as though it should be highly inefficient and that, because of a lack of precision in design, coupled with its massive size, you immediately feel this device should consume high wattage, just to run.

So much so, that once can easily see why the Examiner, in his final rejection, chose to believe that the even larger embodiment would not run off such low-claimed amperage and voltage.

2. Applicant [Joseph Newman] then stated we will now see, if as Applicant stated in lines 11 thru 15 of page 29 of specification, will this "Rube Goldberg" built device give results superior to those taught in the prior art.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] then displayed a very small precision (Distinctive Miniature) D.C. Permanent Magnet Motor built by Aristo-Craft claiming Lo-Drain and Hi-R.P.M. and HIGH OUTPUT; and designed to meet the needs of engineers, designers, hobbyists, and experimenters. Stock No. RE260 showing Nominal Voltage of 3 Volts and current draw of only 250 M.A. (with no load) and R.P.M. of 11,600 (with no load). Copy of the literature on their display box is attached as Exhibit A.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] then states, "You will agree this precision designed (Distinctive Miniature) conventional motor should draw less amperage and wattage than this 'Rube Goldberg' built device you see here, and that there should be no way his device should run on LESS wattage and amperage than this Miniature Precision Conventional Motor AND perform noticeable more work." I eagerly agreed that should be true.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] then hooked the precision miniature motor and his "Rube Goldberg"-looking device in series and hooked them both to one 6-volt D.C. battery. To my amazement, the miniature motor momentarily attempted to run and THEN STOPPED, while the large massive rotary of magnet 300 of Newman's "Rube-Goldberg"-built device ran and on the Simpson 260 meter showed only 30 MILLIAMPERES being drawn! Applicant pointed out that amounts to only .18 watts, less than 1/5 of one watt, while the precision miniature motor at 250 M.A. times 3 volts draws .75 watts or 3/4 of one watt, and yet the difference in torque is phenomenal!

Applicant [Joseph Newman] then asked, "You will admit that these results are as I predicted and described and taught in the specification, relative to improvement over the prior art?" I stated a strong, "Yes!"

The fact of the matter is, both experiments of 1 and 2 above proved the truth of the teachings of Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] specification.

A. He demonstrated the energy released from a battery or generator is not used up in the work load as is taught in prior art, but to the contrary, the work load REDUCES the amount of needed input into a generator, when the circuit is completed. And also reduces the destruction of a battery. Amazing, but true, and in accordance with Applicant's teachings and instructions of his specification.

B. He added MORE ATOMS to coil 305 and MORE ATOMS to magnet 300 and demonstrated amazing results, in that he uses LESS energy input and INCREASES energy output. Again, amazing, but true, and in accordance with Applicant's teachings and instructions in his specification.

3. Applicant [Joseph Newman] then went to a conventional, larger 12-volt precision D.C. permanent magnet motor, still a fractional horsepower, but 3 inches in diameter, made by Tenna Corporation, and which its literature states that Tenna was the leader in fractional horsepower motors and claims the permanent magnet motor to be designed for giving maximum service, dependability, and EFFICIENCY. Applicant was advised by several electrical engineers that said motor would be in the 80% efficiency range. (Applicant, on calling the Company, was advised it had gone out of business because of economic conditions.) Copy of Tenna's brochure is attached as Exhibit B.

Said conventional precision motor draws 1.2 amps just to run, with no load times 12 volts equals over 14 watts and no load.

Tests on said conventional precision 12-volt motor and compared to tests on Applicant's prototype that is exhibited here at the Hospitality House, is detailed in Dr. Hastings' Declaration of April 26, 1982 and is shown as Exhibit 4 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

Using a "V"-belt as a slip clutch over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to shaft of said conventional precision 12-volt motor and attached to a spring scale, Applicant demonstrated to me the same type remarkable results as is described by Dr. Hastings in said Exhibit 4, when the "V"-belt slip clutch and spring scale were hooked to Applicant's prototype over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley.

And contrary to the understandable conclusion drawn by the Examiner in lines 12 and 13 of page 8 of Examiner's Answer Before the Board, this remarkable result is not "rotor moment of inertia". The braking mechanism can be MAINTAINED and the results will be CONSTANT so long as the battery voltage is CONSTANT.

Again, those results are remarkable in view of prior art teachings. However, in view of the teachings and instructions of Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] specification, they are predictable, as he has done so, and because the facts of operation are as he predicted, proof is given of the correctness of the teaching's of Applicant's specification.

Also, as to the understandable conclusion question posed by the Examiner in the third paragraph of page 3 of the Examiner's Answer Before the Board, that there should be no complicated wave form from Applicant's Invention when viewing D.C. Input. There MOST DEFINITELY is a VERY unexpected wave form seen on a B & K Precision Oscilloscope, Model #1476 (copy of cover page of manual of said oscilloscope is attached as Exhibit C) when viewing the input current from a D.C. source into Applicant's invention. As the Examiner expected, there is not a complicated wave form on the oscilloscope when viewing the input from a D.C. source into said CONVENTIONAL precision 12-volt permanent magnet motor.

It is appreciated that the Examiner would naturally attempt to judge Applicant's specification and stated results off his prior beliefs, as result of his prior teachings, but the facts consistently show that the doubts and assumptions made by the Examiner are NOT as he anticipated and that the statements made by Applicant [Joseph Newman] and other competent individuals are TRUE and FACTUAL.

The facts show the statements made by Dr. Hastings in Exhibit 4 of the Appeal Brief are as stated.

The difference in the performance of other conventional precision motors, which draw low wattage (15 watts or less) and Applicant's "Rube-Goldberg"-built motor as so extreme in favor of Applicant's Motor Invention as to be SHOCKING to those not skilled in the teachings of Applicant's specification.

4. Applicant [Joseph Newman] then went to a Black & Decker 1/5 horsepower, torque geared precision hand drill that ran at 1200 R.P.M. (with no load) and Applicant demonstrated that it drew 1.5 amps and 115 volts, or over 160 watts just to run, with no load.

Applicant, then using same "V"-belt as a slip clutch and spring scale and hooked over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to the shaft of said 1/5 horsepower precision drill, applied a constant 2-pound pull, the amperage draw went up 250 M.A. or wattage draw increased by 28.75 watts, and R.P.M. decreased to 1050 R.P.M., and produced in the vicinity of 18 watts, as calculated by Dr. Hastings.

It is easily seen, the above shows a percentage of wattage output relative to increased energy input over NO LOAD ENERGY USE, of approximately 63%.

However, the No Load Energy consumption was already more than 160 watts, which, when load of 18 watts was applied, the total wattage consumption on said precision 1/5 horsepower Black & Decker motor then rose to 178 watts.

Applicant then stated, "Let's compare the results of this precision 1/5 horsepower Black & Decker, torque geared motor to my invention."

Applicant proceeded to demonstrate that with same "V"-belt and spring scale slip clutch hooked to 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to shaft of the "Rube Goldberg" prototype of his invention, the invention with same 2-pound pull rotated in the vicinity of 400 R.P.M. and only drew 100 MILLIAMPERES TIMES 81 VOLTS OR ONLY 8.1 WATTS on Simpson 260 meter and was under a load of torque brake of 6 watts, as calculated by Dr. Hastings and, in addition, was lighting a fluorescent light bulb hooked to generator coil 306, but not to full brightness, and which drew 28 watts when hooked to house current of 115 volts. This torque load of 6 watts plus the vicinity of 3 watts in fluorescent bulb, gives output of 9 watts, and added to this must be the energy loss dissipated in vibrating the entire 1000 pound system, which is easily felt by hand touch, and also the watts being dissipated away from the system, which is easily picked up by a transistor radio placed across the room.

It should be noted the invention (with no load) was only pulling 60 M.A. and 81 Volts or 4.86 WATTS reading on Simpson 260 meter. Therefore, the invention only increased in wattage draw by 3.24 WATTS when under load of producing over 9 WATTS OF ENERGY OUTPUT! And the total wattage input EVEN UNDER LOAD is only 8 watts or less!

Example: When input current is observed on said oscilloscope, it can be observed that the true input current into the Newman invention is even LESS than shown on the Simpson 260 meter; which attempts to take an AVERAGE reading, but which weighted mass of its pointer cannot possibly pick up high spikes of current back E.M.F. that occur at tremendous speeds.

Example: Applicant [Joseph Newman] demonstrated that when the volts per centimeter of said oscilloscope were dialed to 20 volts per centimeter, and the input current then attempted to be read, the input current is so small that at 20 volts per centimeter, no input current can be seen. However, with sweep times set at 20 M.S. or higher, there is a high amount of thin spikes occurring, that go completely off the scale.

This, Applicant points out, is the result of action and re-action effect of atoms within the copper coil and back E.M.F., and is also seen in oscillographs taken by Dr. Weber shown on page D of Exhibit 6 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

As attorney Pugh has already pointed out in his Reply Brief (bottom of page 5), "The originals previously filed in the record are clear and intelligible."

It should be noted that the Newman Invention even under load in demonstration of 4 above, was STILL drawing LESS amperage than said precision miniature motor (which drew 250 M.A. with no load) in experiment of 2 above. And the Newman Invention was still drawing LESS wattage than said precision Tenna 12-volt permanent magnet D.C. motor in 3 above, which drew 14 watts with no load.

In summation, it is easily established from the facts of actual observation of said working prototype of Applicant's Invention, that his invention works as he has instructed and taught in his specification of his Application. And that said prototype clearly matches the instructions of Applicant's specification and can be easily built from said instructions. And that said prototype has produced an energy output greater than the External Energy Input Into the system. That the amazing predictions Applicant [Joseph Newman] stated and taught would occur, when following the instructions and teachings of his specification, had indeed occurred and been astoundingly demonstrated in a "Rube Goldberg" prototype of Applicant's invention. That the statements made by Applicant and other competent individuals in Affidavit form are proven true by the facts of said demonstration of the smaller 1000-pound prototype demonstrated here. It is obvious from the facts presented, that the larger prototype with 600-pound atom Magnet Rotary 300 and 4200-pound atom Copper Coil 305 and 300-pound atom Generator Coil 305 will give even more amazing results and is the prototype that most of the Affidavits have been addressed to. The unit weighing in the vicinity of 5000 pounds was too large for Applicant to bring to the Washington, D.C. area. Even said one-half ton unit demonstrated has been a burden and high expense for Applicant to bring to this area.

The questions and doubts and disbeliefs raised by the Examiner are understandable because of his prior teachings and experiences. However, his persistent negativism in spite of the facts, exemplifies that Applicant's invention is New and Novel. Not a change of mere degree, but a distinct change in kind.

Applicant, himself, has objectively pointed out important facts and points of human nature which are pertinent to this very case in his Declaration shown in Exhibit 11 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.

Applicant [Joseph Newman], understandably, is quite put out that his Affidavits have been refused effectiveness to remove a 112 rejection. As a result and the necessity of this Appeal, the costs to him in legal fees alone are greater than $20,000, as of this date.

There is no basis to distinguish between such a set of Affidavits and those submitted under Rule 132. These are, at best, also prima facie or rebuttable presumptions in litigation.

The Patent and Trademark Office or government does not guarantee the validity of the patent. The invalidity of the patent can be reckoned by the experts judging the file history of prosecution, etc.

I suggest that the cost to Applicants to argue the usual 112 rejection is way out of line with the benefit to the Country. Let us put that time, energy, and money into more patent applications, more inventions, more research, etc. Our great, but ailing Country, will benefit.

This Revolutionary Pioneering Invention of Applicant's [Joseph Newman] is a prime example. Let the experts in the art be the judge. Let us not deny them the chance to be such.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] started work on this Invention more than seventeen years ago in March, 1965. The extensive teachings and disclosures of his Patent Application and its Disclosure Document are
testament to his achievements. A life's work in itself. His work and teachings will be challenging even for the experts in the field, because of the newness and vastness of discussion, which covers overlapping scientific fields.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] has proven to me through demonstration that his teachings and instructions of his specifications are true and factual and that he has most definitely met the requirements of 112.

Applicant [Joseph Newman] has indeed produced and disclosed a Pioneering Invention which will undoubtedly be of great benefit to the world. We should do all we can to assist him in getting the broad patent protection of which he is surely deserving for his efforts of years of labor and genius.

Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] proposed claim changes (Appendix I of Appeal Brief before the Board) should be allowed and the patent should issue at the earliest possible date because of its extreme importance and benefit to the people, and so that others in the field may immediately begin to build, or attempt to design and build on this invention, of which the entire world is in dire need.

I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements, and the like so made, are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the Application or any patent issued thereon.

[Sent/Signed by]

PAUL L. GOMORY

I believe you will agree that the above Affidavit is impressive.

[Signed]
Joseph Westley Newman

P.S.
Remember the specific words of technical expert in electrical engineering and Special Master William Schuyler (former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Office) --- Quoting from his Report of the Special Master:

"Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court IS OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input energy; there is NO contradictory factual evidence."

Those words of the Special Master speak for themselves.