I agree with Eric; as I told many times it could be kind of suicidal for Rossi to give real details - as what he calls catalyst in a patent description now. He wants priority based on the ignorance of the potential competition and NOT a patent. The first sign of really wanting a patent will be to eliminate that fantastic (to not tell what I really think) 5000 C. So he wants to give a bit legal oxygen to this claim and alludes to the good results of the TIP Report. (we still have to see it). Peter
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Patrick Ellul <ellulpatr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123564999_3.pdf >> > > In this document an intellectual property law firm requests on Rossi's > behalf reconsideration of his September 2010 US patent application, making > several amendments. The 2010 application is here: > > http://www.google.com/patents/US20110005506 > > Among the amendments is the dropping of claim (8), which had to do with > the catalyst: > > 8. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method > catalyze materials are used. > > > Presumably a patent application that requires that one both be > knowledgeable in the art and also have access to a secret catalyst did not > pass muster with the patent examiner. > > Scanning over the original patent application, a number of details caught > my eye that I had heard about in one or another connection but did not > recall from where: > > - The notion that there is proton capture in nickel. > - Mention of the boron shielding. > - Mention of the lead shielding. > - Mention of the shielding being used to prevent radiation from > escaping the copper tube. > > No doubt some or many of these details have changed in connection with > more recent iterations of the E-Cat. I'm guessing that it's in Rossi's > interests to make the minimal changes necessary to the application to keep > it alive, or otherwise risk having to file a new application and move the > date of priority forward. For that reason perhaps there has been no > attempt to remove the parts about proton capture, for example; I assume > they have since discovered that any proton capture is a minor process if it > occurs at all, but I could obviously be wrong on this detail. The idea of > proton capture goes back at least to Piantelli, and it appears to have been > inherited by Rossi as the default explanation as of the writing of the 2010 > application. > > Just a wild, uninformed guess, but I wonder if this request is a moonshot > by the patent attorneys to keep the 2010 patent application in play. Rossi > probably needs to file a new patent application. I'm guessing that a new > application would look pretty different in its details. > > Eric > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
