Here is a search of uspto.gov for "cold fusion": http://goo.gl/groRG
I think this hit indicates that the formal stance is that despite it being "incredible" technology, "cold fusion" should be evaluated on the basis of "utility": Examples of such cases include: ... a "cold fusion" process for producing energy (In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. Cir. 2000)).... These examples are fact specific and should not be applied as a per se rule. Thus, in view of the rare nature of such cases, Office personnel should not label an asserted utility "incredible," "speculative" or otherwise unless it is clear that a rejection based on "lack of utility" is proper. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm However, there clearly _is_ a perception among intellectual property counsel that the USPTO does treat inventions labeled "cold fusion" with a "jaundiced eye". This, alone, is sufficient to justify an executive to treat the lawfulness of the USPTO with caution and, in cases where what is at stake simply cannot be adequately insured against even the small risk of lawlessness by a government organ in a critical jurisdiction such as the United States, the prudent course of action would be to build a case outside of that jurisdiction with minimum risk exposure given that a patent is not a safe option. Remember, a CEO is answerable to stockholders, not to Mary Yugo. See, for example: "Under the current approach to defining practical utility and operability, the USPTO appears to have approached the majority of biotechnology cases with the same jaundiced eye that it casts on perpetual motion machines or cold fusion inventions." http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/biotech/bioind.html And this: COMMISSIONER LEHMAN: Thank you very much. Next I'd like to call Micheal Farber of Merchant and Gould. // MICHEAL FARBER, MERCHANT and GOULD MR. FARBER: Thank you, Commission Lehman and panelists. My name is Micheal B. Farber and I'm a patent attorney with Merchant and Gould, in Los Angeles. We are a full-service intellectual property firm, and our biotechnology clients include small start-ups, large Fortune 500 multinational corporations, non-profit research institutions and universities in a broad range of biotechnology areas. I would like to address several issues, particularly with respect to enablement and nonobviousness and the level of ordinary skill in the art. I think with respect to enablement, which also ties in to some extent with utility, there has been a perceived lack of credibility for biotechnology which has almost put it into the same weird science standard as perpetual motion or cold fusion, and I don't think this is appropriate. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is a Patent Office memo here: > > http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/PatentOfficeMemo.jpg > > I take this to mean they plan to deep six any application relating to cold > fusion. That has been the de facto policy ever since this memo was written. > However, the memo is vague enough that someone might argue it means they > plan to give cold fusion special, kid gloves treatment to expedite > applications. These bureaucrats are not stupid. They would not write a > "smoking gun" memo ordering their staff to summarily reject any cold fusion > application. > > Maybe I should add this document to the regular library, along with the > patent just issued. > > The patent office has not denied all patents related to cold fusion. Some > have slipped through, mainly a technicality, such as the one they gave > Patterson because he was old. > > Honestly, I do not claim the patent office for this mess. Opposition to > cold fusion is society-wide. It is prevalent among scientists although the > number who support cold fusion is larger than most people realize. > Opposition and ignorance is universal in the mass media, and among high > officials such as Sec. of Energy Chu. > > - Jed > >
