Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Tenth Letter to Mr. Obama on December 29, 2009

Mr. Barack Obama

President of the United States of America

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Obama,

Breaking the Law, Breaching of Ethics and Violation of Science

‘The USPTO also suffers a lingering systemic failure being so inept that I had to disclose my issued patent US 6,766,817 so that inventors, attorneys, and examiners would respect it technical and legal IP rights.’

Mr. President this is my tenth letter sent to you having no single reply regarding an ongoing bias against Hydrology by USPTO. The same blatant systemic failure in the American security is also taking place shamefully in the patenting affairs as demonstrated below. Due to public negligence it is easy for a terrorist to blow an airplane as Attorneys break the patent Laws, Inventors ignore long standing scientific knowledge and IP issue rights, as also shamefully Patent Examiners Breach the Ethics on their professional expertise judging in a field they are not known in the art.

Flawed patents and violations are less likely to result when Examiners are judging strictly within the boundaries of their due expertise. Then, it becomes a fair deal to avoid Lay People judging Hydrology. There are 1,958,471 issued patents associated with “fluid OR liquid OR flow OR fluidic”. I found 2,074 Patent Examiners that are likely overstepping their expertise boundaries hurting science, breaking the Law and feeding a persistent bias against Hydrology. I have a list of 198 Patent Examiners that already cited my patents and are supposed to be aware of its content.

Today, December 29, USPTO issued the patent US 7,638,093 showing that Inventors, Attorneys, and Examiners are indeed Breaking Patent Laws, Breaching Ethics and violating Hydrology Science. This is so shameful because my patent US 6,766,817 was supposed to be listed as reference as I requested IDS on July 20, 2008 to the inventors and attorneys, even worse since the Patent Examiners Ms. Maureen M. Wallenhorst cited my patent on November 6, 2007 when issuing US 7,291,310. She was supposed to be aware of my issued patent IP rights. Probably she has no Hydrological background.

US 7,638,093 ‘Interrupted flow rapid confirmatory immunological testing device and method’ by Wang; Naishu (San Diego, CA), Zhou; David F. (San Diego, CA), assigned to DNT Scientific Research, LLC (San Diego, CA).

Mr. Obama so far I sent around five thousand letters requesting IDS (Information Disclosure Statement) accordingly just to ask that my issued patent inside USPTO is not neglected (§ 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability). It is shameful because I am not disclosing information from another language, country, or foreign patent office, but USPTO issued patents. Inventors, attorneys, and examiners were supposed to check USPTO data base!

What is the chance that a layperson flying a kite any day could develop airplanes by skirting knowledge of aerodynamic principles from textbooks?

Hydrology is the science of fluids and it must be the backbone of fluidic devices in the Patenting System.

The expression wick/wicking is not found on my Hydrology PhD textbooks just because it bears Thermodynamics requirements and a restricted Hydrology upward toward a flame. Only laypeople use it as can be seen in 24,970 issued patents never gauging their fluid dynamics – Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity (K = mm3/mm2/time).

Around 130 students attended with me the discipline Geo 452 Hydrogeology with Dr. Richard Paryzek in the fall of 1992 at The Pennsylvania State University. I warned Mr. Bush and now I am warning you Mr. Obama that the US is a superpower with plenty of competent professionals in Hydrology to bring and honor advanced Hydrology from my PhD textbooks to the patenting system and avoid laypeople ignore common knowledge allowing flawed patents harming advanced science and infringing issued IP rights. It is a shame when advanced science is violated by flawed patents that even do not work.

In the second semester I learned about public institution failure and lingering negligence. I had my enrollment cancelled for failing to pay a bill of ZERO dollar I received. So, I had this embarrassment of enrolling again as a sponsored student from a developing country that my institution employer was paying the bills. Later I received a $50 penalty for later payment of ZERO dollar debt and the International Advisor wasted two hours trying to convince me to collect that fine. I just told her that I was there to get PhD and I knew how to read and she could send me back to my country is she thought that I was a stupid person. Many PhD peers collected the fine not caring for just fifty dollars. Jaycee Dugard, Bernard Madoff, obesity, economic meltdown, Iraq war, etc are tips about public failure leadership to handle common interest issues of society.

It is fine for you to collect a Nobel Peace Prize just after sending 30 thousand American soldiers to Afghanistan just because the nobility behind Mr. Alfred Nobel comes from developing dynamite creating powerful WMD helping governments wage wars. Mr. Nobel was not working with Hydrology but explosives helping decimate millions of humans.

At Pennsylvania State University on May 10, 1996 on my PhD commencement President Bill Clinton said that we were honored of receiving the highest education that the United States could offer to their citizens and that society would be proud of us in the future for creating new jobs never imagined before.

He mentioned nothing about USPTO being biased harming Hydrology allowing my ‘scientific discovery’ be violated shamefully by lazy patents from lay people that even do not work and deeply ignore common knowledge from my PhD textbooks. He did not mention about American institutions sponsoring scientists that break the Law, breach Ethics and Violate Science ignoring common knowledge long standing on scientific literature.

Soon afterwards as my first issued patent I noticed that Examiners were not experts in Classical Hydrology and I advised USPTO to hire appropriate personnel to honor the advanced science of my patents bearing common knowledge from my textbooks. Last year the situation got even worse when senior Examiners were issuing flawed patents that infringe my patent rights and dishonor simple common knowledge on my textbooks.

US 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.’

US 6,766,817 p. 2. line 60 ‘Specialized scientific literature about unsaturated zones also recognizes this shortcoming. For example: "Several differences and complications must be considered. One complication is that concepts of unsaturated flow are not as fully developed as those for saturated flow, nor are they as easily applied." (See Dominico & Schwartz, 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. Pg. 88. Wiley). Concepts of unsaturated flow have not been fully developed to date, because the "capillary action" utilized to measure the adhesion-cohesion force of porosity is restrained by capillary tube geometry conceptions. The term "capillary action" has been wrongly utilized in the art as a synonym for unsaturated flow, which results in an insinuation that the tube geometry conception captures this phenomenon when in truth it does not.’

I bumped to a sort of ‘scientific discovery dealing with Classical Hydrology being neglected near a century by the patenting system on fluidic devices since the USPTO database is showing that inventors, attorneys, and even examiners are just lay people not trained in Hydrology Science simply ignoring long standing conceptions of fluids moving on porosity.

Easily I figured out that Hydrology in the patenting system is handled by laypeople tracking down conductivity assessment. Today around 71,672 patents mention Heat/Thermal Conductivity, about 52,114 on Electric/Electrical Conductivity, and only 496 on Hydraulic Conductivity. Wick/wicking which is not in the Hydrology scientific terminology is mentioned in around 24,891 issued patents. The phenomenon of wick/wicking is called Unsaturated Hydraulic conductivity and is mentioned today in just 20 issued patents.

My first patent US 6,766,817 was easily issued on Jul 25, 2004 but afterwards it was ignored massively showing that USPTO has no Hydrologists in the examination process. My partners Patent Attorneys suggested me to request IDS (Information Disclosure Statement) so that the examiners would be required to consider my new conceptions in Hydrodynamics bearing a strong scientific background from my PhD Hydrology books.

From this continuous raping of Hydrology I believe even more that my ‘scientific discovery’ (US 6,766,817) as a breakthrough making near 50 thousand patents obsolete for ignoring Hydrology and opening rooms for another new 200 thousand patents combining Hydrology and Energy Cycle on mass transfer. Since 2006 in written communication I have been demanding USPTO to stop a massive infringement on my issued patent rights suggesting the following below to USPTO:

1. Hire Examiners with background in Hydrogeology and/or Soil Physics so that they have full comprehension of fluids moving on porosity;

2. Cancel issued patents with scientific flaws. Obsolete patents are cancelled naturally by becoming outdated;

3. Make a public statement about Hydrology negligence hurting all Hydrological community as well as my project that needs experts in Hydrology to protect the content of my issued claims.

4. Compensate for my losses since as an inventor filing patents I was not expecting lay people handling hydrology in the examination process by USPTO.

5. Since USPTO is failing to protect my IP rights my patents should be eligible for time extension of their expiration dates (new demand).

6. Issue a bill requiring Hydrology be handled by Hydrologists preventing laypeople from harming standing common knowledge in the scientific literature (new demand).

7. Make people accountable for breaking the Law regarding my complaints (new demand).

I believe that it does not require a strong intellectual acumen to notice that Hydrology is supposed to be handled by Hydrologists, as well as Laws are handled by Lawyers, Chemistry by Chemists, and so on.

By the way, Hydrology is not a new science. Henry Darcy proposed a Law about Saturated Flow in 1856 to address Hydraulic Conductivity on porosity. Edgard Buckingham proposed an updating equation to measure Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow in 1907 and my issued patent US 6,766,817 is the first one to measure it on artificial porosity near a century later deploying classical hydrogeology to the patenting system.

By the way, wick/wicking is the kite of aerodynamics marring today 24,891 issued patents by skirting common knowledge in classical Hydrology showing how long a Classical Science can be ignored.

There is plenty of coherence to send scientists, attorneys, and examinersto jail and also to create a new science I called ‘Hydrotechnology’ to address this huge technological and scientific gap bringing Hydrogeology principles to artificial porosity exploring molecular connectivity on mass flow dynamics.

The Commissioner of Patents is suggesting that I challenge at the Court of Law violations of my patents that I disagree. I told him that it may be more appropriate to challenge USPTO on Dereliction of Duty and Breaching of Ethics. Many violating patents have scientific flaws from lay people that do not have the appropriate expertise to address the subject and is taking advantage of USPTO negligence on Hydrological Examination allowing non Hydrologists break Ethics on a field they are not known in the art – HYDROLOGY. When filing patents at USPTO I was expecting Hydrology be examined by Hydrologists and my patent rights be respected accordingly.

Honesty and commonality are the best analytical tools to make inroads to nature secrets. Some lay inventors propelled by ignorance think that flying a kite can lead them toward airplanes by skirting aerodynamics.

Nature blesses you and the United States of America and let Hydrology ring free from lay people.

Kind regards,

Campinas, Brazil, December 29, 2009

Elson Silva, Ph. D.

Av. Dr. Júlio Soares de Arruda, 838

Parque São Quirino

CEP 13088-300 - Campinas - SP - Brazil

Phone 55 *19 3256-7265






No comments:

Post a Comment