At 12:27 PM 9/28/2014, Jones Beene wrote:
A picture is
worth 1000 words
http://fusionfroide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rossis-HOT-CAT-reactor.jpg
and no, there is no indication that the photons seen here are coherent,
or even superradiant. No evidence is possible since there is no le
As for the patent which most resembles the Hot-Cat, it is probably this one:
“Molecular hydrogen laser” US 7773656 to Mills. Of course, Rossi’s device is
not a laser, but in operation it is closer than you may realize - unless you
have followed the SPP discussions.
A picture is worth 1000 w
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> James Bowery wrote:
>
> . . . there is the argument that any fair-selection of jurors would find
>> convincing:
>>
>> If it was so obvious then why didn't your GE/DoE/APS/etc... clients
>> deploy this technology decades ago?
>>
>
> 1. Patent
Eric, Piantelli's patents are professionally written have precision,
logical consistency while Rossi's patent is the opposite.
Peter
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> From the perspective of IP strategy, Rossi was in a catch-22 in 2010. If
> he fully disclosed in a patent ap
From: Daniel Rocha
If Rossi presented his reactor to the USPTO, and let them test it, wouldn't
that solve the issue? I vaguely remember they have a similar rule to free
energy devices.
You are probably thinking of the Joe Newman saga.
There is no “rule” for this, but there is every
>From the perspective of IP strategy, Rossi was in a catch-22 in 2010. If
he fully disclosed in a patent application, he risked having the
application denied while simultaneously letting his trade secrets out into
the wild, where others could copy him without his having legal protection.
In light
Daniel Rocha wrote:
If Rossi presented his reactor to the USPTO, and let them test it, wouldn't
> that solve the issue?
> I vaguely remember they have a similar rule to free energy devices.
>
The Patent Office does not have laboratories or the authority to test
devices. I think what they demand
Axil Axil wrote:
In the 2010 Patent, Rossi said that he experimentally verified that nickel
> was transmuted to copper.
>
Big mistake. He should not have made that claim. That transmutation serves
no useful purpose at present, so he should not have mentioned it. (This is
what French and others h
James Bowery wrote:
. . . there is the argument that any fair-selection of jurors would find
> convincing:
>
> If it was so obvious then why didn't your GE/DoE/APS/etc... clients deploy
> this technology decades ago?
>
1. Patent disputes are not decided by juries. The judges are experts in
paten
Jones Beene wrote:
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell
>
>
> Rossi's patent resembles Arata's. Rossi's own lawyers wrote many responses
> trying to distinguish it from Arata.
>
>
>
> Are you confusing US patents with WIPO applications ?
>
>
>
> Which Arata patent at USPTO are you referring to?
>
Honestly,
If Rossi presented his reactor to the USPTO, and let them test it, wouldn't
that solve the issue?
I vaguely remember they have a similar rule to free energy devices.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jed Rothwell
wrote:
> Axil Axil wrote:
>
> The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for LENR operation
>> before a patent is granted.
>>
>
> That is incorrect. The Patent Office never demands a theory. It is a big
> mistake to present a theory. Re
In the 2010 Patent, Rossi said that he experimentally verified that nickel
was transmuted to copper. The patent examiner stated in the rejection of
that patent, that no known science can verify that nickel can transmute to
copper, so the device is inoperable.
By the same logic, the patent examiner
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell
wrote:
> This is basically a hybrid of the Ni used by Mills combined with the
> nanoparticles used by Arata. It does not seem very original when you
> describe it that way, but it is. No one else thought of doing it. No one
> else managed to do it so
From: Jed Rothwell
Rossi's patent resembles Arata's. Rossi's own lawyers wrote many responses
trying to distinguish it from Arata.
Are you confusing US patents with WIPO applications ?
Which Arata patent at USPTO are you referring to? AFAIK all of Arata’s US
patents for LENR have
What you say, Jed, and what David French has said, is absolutely true: the
theory has no real place in the patent and can limit the scope or
completely invalidate the claims. On the other hand, if you don't have a
good theory for how the invention works, it is nearly impossible to write
claims havi
Jones Beene wrote:
> It is clear that Rossi has never understood what is going on in this
> reaction, which is only slightly different from the earlier devices of
> Thermacore (1992) and Mills (2003).
>
No, experts tell this is quite different from Themacore or Mills. It is
powder instead of b
From: Eric Walker
Just a wild, uninformed guess, but I wonder if this request is a moonshot by
the patent attorneys to keep the 2010 patent application in play. Rossi
probably needs to file a new patent application. I'm guessing that a new
application would look pretty different in its de
Axil Axil wrote:
The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for LENR operation
> before a patent is granted.
>
That is incorrect. The Patent Office never demands a theory. It is a big
mistake to present a theory. Read the papers by David French explaining why.
The Patent Office nor
Rossi did not convince the patent examiner that the LENR process was some
other undefined non nuclear process. Finding someone who is skilled in this
new LENR art will be impossible. Nuclear physics says that the E-Cat cannot
work, so no patent can be issued. Rossi must lay out a completely new LEN
I agree with Eric; as I told many times it could be kind of suicidal for
Rossi to give real details - as what he calls catalyst in a patent
description now. He wants priority based on the ignorance of the potential
competition
and NOT a patent.
The first sign of really wanting a patent will be to e
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Patrick Ellul
wrote:
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123564999_3.pdf
>
In this document an intellectual property law firm requests on Rossi's
behalf reconsideration of his September 2010 US patent application, making
several amendments. The 2010 applicati
In waiting of the second independent third party report.
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123564999_3.pdf
via: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ECat.LENR/
Regards,
Patrick
23 matches
Mail list logo
