Talk:Incredible utility

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Perpet[edit]

Was my addition of Category “Perpetual motion” justified? Perpetual motion schemes are listed as one of several examples where the policy applies.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the addition is justified. --Edcolins (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal or just plain gibberish?[edit]

A rejection based on incredible utility can be overcome by providing evidence that as a whole would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the asserted utility is more likely than not true.

That sentence makes no sense at all for me. If it is indeed correct, could someone please add a translation into ordinary english? --Maxus96 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... the sentence seems quite clear to me. --Edcolins (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and thanks to the punctuation you added. --Maxus96 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Edcolins (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]