On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:56 AM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
Most of this stuff has been covered already and as you say it is a matter > of opinion. > I'm starting to get some energy back. Please enumerate what you've already gone over that I've overlooked, and what I've said that is simply a matter of opinion, so that together we can correct the record. Patents have not come up before. I presume you know the Patent Office has > a special procedure to stop or delay patents on cold fusion as they have > taken DOE's word for it that it is like perpetual motion and impossible. > The one patent Rossi has obtained in the US carefully avoids mentioning > LENR/cold fusion in order to get passed. Hence some details about the LENR > side of it are missing. > Patents have come up many, many times, before, in connection with Rossi. I'm not sure what you're suggesting. I do not claim that there are difficulties at the US patent office getting LENR patents. But this has no bearing on whether a generically worded patent is enabling. If the patent is enabling, a person having ordinary skill in the art (the art, here, is presumably engineering and materials science stuff relating to the building of nickel hydride reactors) will be able to reproduce what is described in the patent. I know of not a single replication of one of the embodiments in one of Rossi's patents. I know of several attempted Lugano replications, which in hindsight are of questionable quality. But they were working from the Lugano test and not a patent of Rossi's. To compound matters, Rossi has done things like referring to a "catalyst" in a claim of a patent and then omitted to describe the catalyst. In drawing up these patent applications, has either been (1) acting on bad legal advice, (2) ignoring good legal advice, or (3) writing a patent application for something that doesn't exist. This is not the kind of reasonable behavior that I would expect, e.g., from a reasonable engineer working at Intel who came up with a new process and wants to benefit from this invention. It's some other kind of behavior, systematically carried out over years. I also note that IH have applied for patents about Rossi's technology > adding the name of one of their employees as inventor. > Others have noted that it was within IH's rights under US patent law, as a presumptive licensee of Rossi's technology, to do this. Also have taken out patents in countries where they are not licensed to > operate. > IH address this point in their reply to the complaint. > So the situation is murky to say the least. It seems strange to me for IH > to maintain that Rossi's technology doesn't work and yet apply for patents > saying that it does. > We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't work; perhaps they are, in which case perhaps that will come to light later in a court document of some kind. What we know for sure of their position is that they haven't been able to substantiate his claims. In hindsight, knowing Rossi, this is not a surprise. Eric
