Application of Carsten Ingeman Johnsen

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5-7, and 12-15 in the appellant’s application 1 entitled “Generation of Hydrogen and Electrical Energy.”

This case provides yet another illustration of the difficulties which beset an inventor, unfamiliar with Patent Office procedure, who prosecutes his application pro se and of the continuing validity of the observation by the Supreme Court in Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 171, 12 S.Ct. 825, 831, 36 L.Ed. 658 that:

* * * The specification and claims of a patent, particularly if…