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
I don't see how it challenge FP,
it is theory?
2014-09-28 2:34 GMT+02:00 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:04:12 -0400:
Hi Harry,
[snip]
Since we are dealing in impossibilities
Rossi did not convince the patent examiner that the LENR process was some
other undefined non nuclear process. Finding someone who is skilled in this
new LENR art will be impossible. Nuclear physics says that the E-Cat cannot
work, so no patent can be issued. Rossi must lay out a completely new
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for LENR operation
before a patent is granted.
That is incorrect. The Patent Office never demands a theory. It is a big
mistake to present a theory. Read the papers by David French explaining why.
The
From: Eric Walker
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
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
It is clear that Rossi has never understood what is going on in this
reaction, which is only slightly different from the earlier devices of
Thermacore (1992) and Mills (2003).
No, experts tell this is quite different from Themacore or Mills. It is
What you say, Jed, and what David French has said, is absolutely true: the
theory has no real place in the patent and can limit the scope or
completely invalidate the claims. On the other hand, if you don't have a
good theory for how the invention works, it is nearly impossible to write
claims
From: Jed Rothwell
Rossi's patent resembles Arata's. Rossi's own lawyers wrote many responses
trying to distinguish it from Arata.
Are you confusing US patents with WIPO applications ?
Which Arata patent at USPTO are you referring to? AFAIK all of Arata’s US
patents for LENR have
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is basically a hybrid of the Ni used by Mills combined with the
nanoparticles used by Arata. It does not seem very original when you
describe it that way, but it is. No one else thought of doing it. No one
else
In the 2010 Patent, Rossi said that he experimentally verified that nickel
was transmuted to copper. The patent examiner stated in the rejection of
that patent, that no known science can verify that nickel can transmute to
copper, so the device is inoperable.
By the same logic, the patent
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for LENR operation
before a patent is granted.
That is incorrect. The Patent Office never demands a theory. It is a big
If Rossi presented his reactor to the USPTO, and let them test it, wouldn't
that solve the issue?
I vaguely remember they have a similar rule to free energy devices.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Jed Rothwell
Rossi's patent resembles Arata's. Rossi's own lawyers wrote many responses
trying to distinguish it from Arata.
Are you confusing US patents with WIPO applications ?
Which Arata patent at USPTO are you referring to?
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . there is the argument that any fair-selection of jurors would find
convincing:
If it was so obvious then why didn't your GE/DoE/APS/etc... clients deploy
this technology decades ago?
1. Patent disputes are not decided by juries. The judges are
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
In the 2010 Patent, Rossi said that he experimentally verified that nickel
was transmuted to copper.
Big mistake. He should not have made that claim. That transmutation serves
no useful purpose at present, so he should not have mentioned it. (This is
what
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
If Rossi presented his reactor to the USPTO, and let them test it, wouldn't
that solve the issue?
I vaguely remember they have a similar rule to free energy devices.
The Patent Office does not have laboratories or the authority to test
devices. I
From the perspective of IP strategy, Rossi was in a catch-22 in 2010. If
he fully disclosed in a patent application, he risked having the
application denied while simultaneously letting his trade secrets out into
the wild, where others could copy him without his having legal protection.
In light
From: Daniel Rocha
If Rossi presented his reactor to the USPTO, and let them test it, wouldn't
that solve the issue? I vaguely remember they have a similar rule to free
energy devices.
You are probably thinking of the Joe Newman saga.
There is no “rule” for this, but there is
Eric, Piantelli's patents are professionally written have precision,
logical consistency while Rossi's patent is the opposite.
Peter
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
From the perspective of IP strategy, Rossi was in a catch-22 in 2010. If
he fully
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . there is the argument that any fair-selection of jurors would find
convincing:
If it was so obvious then why didn't your GE/DoE/APS/etc... clients
deploy this technology
As for the patent which most resembles the Hot-Cat, it is probably this one:
“Molecular hydrogen laser” US 7773656 to Mills. Of course, Rossi’s device is
not a laser, but in operation it is closer than you may realize - unless you
have followed the SPP discussions.
A picture is worth 1000
At 12:27 PM 9/28/2014, Jones Beene wrote:
A picture is
worth 1000 words
http://fusionfroide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rossis-HOT-CAT-reactor.jpg
and no, there is no indication that the photons seen here are coherent,
or even superradiant. No evidence is possible since there is no
I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he
says he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I
haven't seen a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi.
Has he let such a denial slip?
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
From James,
I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson -- which is interesting given that he says
he wants to give no information on the underlying theory -- but I haven't seen
a denial of Mills's GUToCP from Rossi.
Has he let such a denial slip?
IMO, you are setting yourself up to
The link has two drawings on the same page. The top drawing, which is the
one I found, doesn't challenge FP research.
The bottom drawing is my modified version and it is intended to show that
the fusion process can be considered reversible as long as it does not
reach the final stage.
Are you
unfounded is a loaded term.
Nickel + catalyst = heat is not a foundation -- it is a pattern.
Please forgive my neurons for doing their job.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
From James,
I've seen Rossi deny Windom Larson
Rossi is known to be misleading in his statements -- and for obvious
reasons of commercial advantage -- but he seems to be avoiding outright
lies about his theory. So what might be misleading about his denial of
Windom Larson without being a lie?
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, James Bowery
It’s more complicated than that. Everyone borrows to a greater or to a less
extent.
Mills borrowed at little, Rossi borrowed a lot. Yet in the end – success may
require both borrowers - and probably one or two more.
From: James Bowery
Rossi is known to be misleading in his
28 matches
Mail list logo
