Rossi wrote:
> . . . we have replicated all the existing patents and know hows regarding > the LENR existing in the world and no one of them has manifested a real > heat excess with the following exceptions: Ikegami-Petterson system and > Brian Ahern System. These are the only two systems that actually gave us > evidence of a heat excess. All the other systems that we have reproduced ( > and we have reproduced, with huge investments, all of the systems that have > been proposed in all the world in the last 20 years, with particular > attention on the experiments made in the last 4 years, that have been > analyzed with extreme endeavour) have not given any heat excess evidence. > A patent is supposed to describe the device in enough detail that it can be replicated. BUT, only if the person replicating is a "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA). So, if Rossi et al. cannot replicate a particular patent, that could be because they lack ordinary skill in the art. Or it could be the patent is invalid. We cannot tell. Even if we had detailed information about these replications, we still might not be able to tell, because we ourselves are not PHOSITA. It may be the only PHOSITA in the world for a particular device is the original inventor. That is a contradiction, because that would not be "ordinary skill" -- it would be extraordinary. The issue is a can of worms. The rule sounds clearly defined and sensible, but it isn't. My guess is that many of these patents are not valid. That is only a guess. - Jed
