## Facts

- Allen Brueckner filed a patent application claiming fuel-pellet configurations and methods for improving inertial confinement nuclear fusion by irradiating pellets with lasers to increase fusion burn efficiency.
- The patent examiner rejected the claims under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, concluding the invention was “useful solely” in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.
- The PTO Board of Appeals affirmed, reasoning the invention fit within “atomic weapon” concepts and treating its practical utility as weapons-focused despite acknowledged peaceful uses.
- Brueckner appealed, arguing the invention had substantial non-weapon utility in controlled fusion research and potential power generation, and that the PTO’s approach removed the statutory limitation “solely.”
- Amici (including the Department of Energy and a research university) supported the view that the invention had significant peaceful applications.

## Issues

1. Whether an invention with acknowledged non-weapon utility can be deemed “useful solely” in atomic weapons under 42 U.S.C. § 2181(a) and thus categorically unpatentable.
2. Whether inventions with both peaceful and weapons-related applications must be evaluated under the dual-use framework of 42 U.S.C. § 2181(b) rather than the absolute bar in § 2181(a).
3. Whether patent claims for dual-use nuclear technology must be restricted by claim language to “peaceful” uses to avoid the § 2181(a) prohibition.

## Decision

- The court reversed the Board of Appeals.
- Section 2181(a) did not bar patenting because the invention was not useful solely in atomic weapons; non-weapon utility was conceded.
- The court held that dual-use inventions fall, if at all, within § 2181(b)’s statutory controls rather than § 2181(a)’s categorical exclusion.
- The court rejected requiring “peaceful purpose” limitations in the claim language as a condition of patentability under the Act.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s interpretation and for examination on ordinary patentability requirements.

## Legal Principles

- The Atomic Energy Act’s patent bar in 42 U.S.C. § 2181(a) applies only when an invention is useful exclusively (“solely”) in atomic weapons; the term “solely” must be given operative effect.
- If an invention has any substantial non-weapon utility, it is not excluded from patenting by § 2181(a) even if it also has weapons-related applications.
- The Act distinguishes between (a) exclusively weapon-useful inventions (unpatentable) and (b) dual-use inventions, which may be patented subject to statutory governmental rights and controls under § 2181(b).
- Claim drafting need not include express “peaceful use” limitations to satisfy the Act where the invention has non-weapon utility; statutory controls address weapons-related concerns.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Atomic Energy Act does not categorically bar patents for dual-use nuclear technology and that § 2181(a) applies only where an invention’s utility is exclusively weapons-related; because Brueckner’s fusion fuel-pellet invention had conceded peaceful utility, the PTO could not reject it as “useful solely” in atomic weapons.


In re Brueckner, 623 F.2d 184 (C.C.P.A. 1980)