[quote] Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD81qF-cIIc&NR=1
Now, this is interesting: The guy (a patent attorney) asks why in the patent there is no mention of the catalyst, while he now states that there is a catalyst. The guy next points out that IF there is a catalyst and the catalyst is not disclosed into the patent than the patent will be null and void and cannot be enforced. (surprise surprise) Levi reply: I used the term catalyst as a material, but we are talking about the same "object", let me call it an object and I know it exists because Rossi declares that it exists, even if I never cared to check what this object is made of. (He switched from the word catalyst (intended as a chemical material) to the word catalyst intended as an object that acts as a catalyst.) The next guy states that he is puzzled by the issue that Prof. Levi believes Rossi without caring to know what the catalyst is. Prof Levi declares that he does not care because he saw the machine working, so he really does not care about what the catalyst is or is made of.[/quote] I humbly ask the experts in patent law that frequent this thread to share their judgment about the intellectual property protection afforded a “method” of catalytic activity that is provided as opposed to the catalyst as a “material”. More specifically, “my current theory of catalytic spill over activity” in operation as the active agent in the Rossi reactor is the production of negative hydrogen clustered ions using electrical and/or activation of graphite possibly coated with a low work function electron emitter and/or hydride host such as cesium or lithium. Is such a mechanism protected as intellectually protected property without specific disclosure of its existence and explanation of its operation?
