A LEGAL OPINION OF THE HONES PATENT IN LIGHT OF TWO PRIOR ART REFERENCES I. ISSUE POSED The validity of the invention disclosed in US Patent No. 5,404,062, issued on April 4, 1995 - commonly referred to as the "Hones Patent" and on which the commercial "Levitron" device is based - ("subject invention") over the following two prior art references: Ref. 1: Roy M. Harrigan's "Levitation Device" disclosed in US Patent No. 4,382,245 issued on May 3, 1983 and Ref. 2: "The Levitator" device disclosed in plans allegedly sold through an ad in Popular Science Magazine sometime prior to September 29, 1992 II. REQUIREMENT FOR PATENTABILITY Under the United States Patent Law, an invention must satisfy the following three requirements to be patented: (i) Utility; (ii) Novelty; and (iii) Non-obviousness. III. SUBJECT INVENTION As shown in the claims of the subject invention, the subject invention may be classified into the following two categories: (i) A levitation device comprising a first magnet having a first axis, a polygonal periphery and a substantially planer first surface; a second magnet having a second axis and a second surface; and means for rotating said second magnet about the second axis (see claims 1 to 14); and (ii) A method of levitating a magnet comprising the steps of supporting on a horizontal surface a first magnet having a first axis and an upper surface; placing a non-magnetic lifter plate over the upper surface of the first magnet; placing a second magnet having a second axis and a lower surface on said lifter plate; spinning the second magnet about the second axis; substantially aligning the second axis of the second magnet with the first axis of the first magnet; raising the lifter plate vertically upwardly from the first magnet; and removing the lifter plate from between the first and second magnets (see claims 15 to 20). IV. VALIDITY OF THE SUBJECT INVENTION 1. Claim 1 of the subject invention A levitation device in accordance with claim 1 of the subject invention comprises: (a) a first magnet having a first axis, a polygonal periphery and substantially planar first surface, said first magnet being magnetized normal to said first surface and parallel to said first axis such that said first surface has a first polar orientation; (b) a second magnet having a second axis and a second surface, said second magnet being magnetized normal to said second surface and parallel to said second axis such that said second surface has the same orientation as the first surface of the first magnet; and (c) means for rotating said second magnet about the second axis whereby when said second magnet is rotated and disposed vertically above said first magnet with the first and second surfaces in confronting relation, said second magnet levitates over said first magnet. However, Ref. 1 discloses a levitation device in accordance with claim 1 comprising a first magnet, a second magnet and means for stabilizing said second magnet over said first magnet. It is self-evident that a first magnet of Ref. 1 has a first axis and a first surface, said first magnet being magnetized normal to said first surface and parallel to said first axis such that said first surface has a first polar orientation. It is further clear that the second magnet has a second axis and a second surface, said second magnet being magnetized normal to said second surface and parallel to said second axis such that said second surface has the same orientation as the first surface of the first magnet. The means for stabilizing said second magnet over said first magnet in Ref. 1 is considered as means for rotating the second magnet as shown in lines 25-29, column 2. The only difference between the subject invention and Ref. 1 is the shape of the first magnet. That is, a shape of the subject invention has a polygonal periphery and a substantially planar surface, whereas Ref. 1 has a dish-shaped first magnet with concave surface. Furthermore, Ref. 2 clearly describes a levitation device with a composite of ceramic rectangular magnets whose function is to repel and constrain the vehicle - and there is no difference between the shape of the first magnet in both the subject invention and Ref. 2. Also, Ref. 2 shows a ring magnet and a vehicle spinner which are equivalent to the second magnet and means for rotating the second magnet of the subject invention, respectively. Accordingly, we tend to believe that claim 1 of the subject invention is invalid as being anticipated by the disclosures contained in Ref. 2. 2. Claim 2 The levitation device of claim 2 of the subject invention further limits the periphery of the first magnet to be a square. In view of the rectangular shape of the magnetic levitation support plate of Ref. 2, the above limitation is meaningless; and, therefore, we are of the opinion that claim 2 still lacks novelty. 3. Claim 3 Although the levitation device of claim 3 of the subject invention further limits the first and the second magnets to be ceramic magnets, Ref. 2 indicates ceramic rectangular magnet and pivoted ceramic ring magnet. Accordingly, claim 3 does not add any novel element to claim 1; and, therefore, claim 3 also lacks novelty. 4. Claim 4 Claim 4 of the subject invention describes that the second magnet comprises a ring magnet having a central hole, the second surface being substantially planar, said rotating means comprising a spindle affixed in said central hole. However, since the second magnet system is identical to the magnetic levitation vehicle with vehicle spinner of Ref. 2, the limitation of claim 4 does not constitute any patentable subject matter. In this regard, claim 4 undoubtedly lacks novelty. 5. Claim 5 Claim 5 of the subject invention includes means for varying the weight of said second magnet to change the height above said first magnet at which said second magnet levitates. However, Ref. 1, in lines 46-55, column 2, clearly teaches that weights can be added or removed to control the weight of the second magnet. The same weight control means is also illustrated in Ref. 2. Therefore, claim 5 does not add any novel matter to claim 1. 6. Claim 6 Claim 6 of the subject invention shows that said weight varying means comprises at least one washer having a central opening adapted to fit over said spindle. As can be seen in Fig 1 of Ref. 1, washer 11 is illustrated to have a central opening adapted to fit over the spindle 12. Thus, the limitation of claim 6 cannot make the subject invention patentable. 7. Claim 7 As claim 7 of the subject invention mentions that said washer and said spindle are made of a nonmagnetic material, Ref. 2 describes that the vehicle spinner is made of round head brass machine screw with nut and rubber washer. Such material as brass or rubber is a nonmagnetic material; and, therefore, claim 7 also lacks novelty. 8. Claim 8 Although claim 8 of the subject invention includes a lifter plate made of a nonmagnetic material, Ref. 1 indicates that the top assembly may be spun manually on a piece of aluminum or other non-magnetic material as shown in lines 29-31, column 2. Accordingly, the limitation cannot make the claim 8 invention patentable. 9. Claim 9 It is no doubt that the first magnet and the second magnet of both Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 can be permanent magnets. So, the same technical limitation of claim 9 of the subject invention does not add any patentable element to claim 1. Claim 9 lacks novelty. 10. Claim 10 Claim 10 of the subject invention includes a bore disposed through the geometric center of said first magnet. It is noted that an alternate construction of the magnet having a central bore is shown in lines 9-11, column 3, in accordance with Ref. 1. In this connection, the limitation of claim 10 is also known by Ref. 1, and thus claim 10 is still in an unpatentable position. 11. Claim 11 Claim 11 of the subject invention includes a third magnet having a third surface and being positioned adjacent the geometric center of the first magnet, said third magnet being magnetized normal to said third surface such that said third surface has a polar orientation opposite the polar orientation of the first surface of the first magnet. As mentioned above, Ref. 1 describes the base magnet to have a central bore. Theoretically and experimentally, the area of the bore has a polar orientation opposite the polar orientation of the first surface of the base magnet. This means that forming a bore in the base magnet is almost similar to place a magnet having an opposite magnetic orientation and provides a same magnetic effect with the second top magnet. Accordingly, positioning the third magnet at the center of the first magnet can be easily invented by an ordinary person skilled in the art. Thus, Claim 11 is obvious to a person skilled in the art, thereby causing the claim to lack the non-obviousness requirement. 12. Claims 12 and 13 Claim 12 and 13 limit that the third magnet is an electromagnet or a permanent magnet. However, it is noted that the use of an electromagnet forms substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result as with the use of a permanent magnet. In light of claim 12 and 13 describing the third magnet as an electromagnet or a permanent magnet, it is presumed that the subject inventors admit that both of the magnets have the same function and result. Accordingly, claims 12 and 13 are obvious to a person skilled in the art, in line with the reasons for claim 11 of the subject invention. 13. Claim 14 As claim 14 of the subject invention limits the first magnet as an electromagnet, it is also described, in lines 46-48, column 3 in Ref. 1 that the lower magnetic field may be created by suitably shaped electromagnet. In this regard, claim 14 is unpatentable in which every element is known and has no characteristic features. 14. Claim 15 Claim 15 of the subject invention relates to a method of levitating a magnet comprising the steps of: (a) supporting on a horizontal surface a first magnet having a first axis and an upper surface, said first magnet being magnetized normal to said upper surface and parallel to said first axis such that said upper has a polar orientation; (b) placing a non-magnet lifter plate over the upper surface of the first magnet; (c) placing a second magnet having a second axis and a lower surface on said lifter plate, said second magnet being magnetized normal to said lower surface and parallel to said second axis such that said lower surface has the same polar orientation as the upper surface of the first magnet; (d) spinning the second magnet about the second axis while it is on the lifter plate; (e) substantially aligning the second axis of the spinning second magnet with the first axis of the first magnet; (f) raising the lifter plate vertically upwardly from the first magnet from the first magnet until said spinning second magnet levitates above the lifter plate and the upper surface of the first magnet; and (g) removing the lifter plate from between the first and second magnets. Ref. 1 shows, in line 67, column 3 to line 3, column 4, "a suitable base is provided which will position the magnet 14 so that the cone defined by the arrows 16 is coincident with the gravitational force imposed on the assembly10." Therefore, this method is substantially the same as the above step (a) of the subject invention. Ref. 1 teaches, in lines 25-28, column 2, "the top assembly 10 is given rotational movement about the axis thereof and positioned above the lower repelling magnet 14" and further describes, in lines 29-31, column 2, "the top assembly may be spun on a piece of aluminum or other non-magnetic material." This is the same expression as step (b) of the subject invention. Ref. 1 discloses, in lines 29-31, column 2, "the top assembly may be spun manually on a piece of aluminum or other non-magnetic material." This is the exact same procedure as step (c) of the subject invention. Ref. 1 explains, lines 29-31 in column 2, "the top assembly may be spun manually on a piece of aluminum or other non-magnetic material." Accordingly, it is readily considered that step (d) of the subject invention is a known method based on this description. Ref. 1 illustrates, in lines 60-62 in column 4, "when said first axis and said axis are coaxial." It is acknowledged that, in technical terms, when the top assembly is levitated over the base magnet, the axes of the two magnets become naturally coaxial by the centering force to the top assembly. This means that the step (e) of the subject invention is also described or suggested by Ref. 1. Ref. 1 describes, in lines 32-34 in column 2, "the top moved by means of a conventional mechanism until the top reaches a height where the magnet field is strong enough to support it." This expression implies that the top assembly on the piece of non-magnetic material is raised until the top assembly levitates. Accordingly, it is acknowledged that there are no substantial differences between the description of Ref. 1 and the step (f) of the subject invention. Ref. 1 shows, in lines 37-39 in column 2, "the non-magnetic material may then be removed and the top assembly 10 will be suspended with no visible means of support." This explanation is just the same as step (g) of the subject invention. As discussed above, all of the elements of claim 15 are described by the Ref. 1; and, therefore, we are of the opinion that claim 15 of the subject invention is invalid, as it is fully anticipated by the disclosures contained in Ref. 1. 15. Claim 16 Claim 16 of the subject invention limits claim 15 on the point that said spinning step comprises manually spinning said second magnet. However, in light of the indication in Ref. 1, in lines 29 and 30, column 2, that the top assembly may be spun manually, the limitation of claim 16 does not add any novel matter to claim 15 of the subject invention. As long as claim 15 lacks novelty, claim 16 is also invalid as all of the elements are described in Ref. 1. 16. Claim 17 Claim 17 of the subject invention limits claim 15 on the point that said raising step comprises manually raising said lifter plate and said removing step comprises manually removing said lifter plate. Ref. 1 teaches, in lines 32-34, column 2, that the top is moved by means of a conventional mechanism. Since the top assembly is spun manually on the non-magnetic material, said conventional raising mechanism undoubtedly includes manually raising the top assembly on the non-magnetic material and manually removing the non-magnetic material. In this regard, it is considered that claim 17 is invalid, as being obvious to a person skilled in the art. 17. Claims 18 and 19 Claims 18 and 19 of the subject invention limit the shape of the first magnet as a polygonal periphery or a square form. However, the polygonal or rectangular shape of the first magnet is described in Ref. 2, as discussed in claim 1. Therefore, claims 18 and 19 are invalid. 18. Claim 20 Claim 20 of the subject invention includes the step of placing a third magnet adjacent to the geometric center of the first magnet, said third magnet having a polar orientation opposite the polar orientation of said first magnet. As far as the third magnet is concerned, it is obvious as discussed in claim 11. Accordingly, elements of claim 20 are known or obvious; and, therefore, it also lacks the non-obviousness requirement. V. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that claims 1-20 of the subject invention are invalid as they lack both the novelty and non-obviousness required over Ref. 1 and Ref. 2.