But Jed... He stated in the patent that the heat source was a catalyst. But catalysts cannot produce electric power. How can that crazy claim be accepted by the patent office?
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Will the patent office allow such a patent that cannot explain how energy >> is produced? >> > > Yes, it will. David French and many other experts have told me this, and > this is also how I read the P.O. rules. Many discoveries without > theoretical explanations have been patented. > > Not only is this allowed, but French and other experts say you should > leave out all mention of theory in your patent, even if you have a theory. > If you include a theory, and it turns out to be wrong, the patent may be > ruled invalid. Whereas if the patent does not include your theory, it makes > no difference whether the theory is right or wrong. As a rule, you should > not include anything in the patent other than what the Patent Office says > you must include. Anything extra may weaken the patent, and will not make > it stronger. > > The only thing you must include in a patent is a description that will > allow a PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art) to replicate. A > PHOSITA can replicate without knowing a theory. > > - Jed > >
