We don't know yet if his catalyst is unprotected. There is a secret period of 18months after filing.
2012/2/3 Robert <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> > There are real problems with his patent. Not only is there a host of > un-cited prior art, patent and public domain, but his existing patent > application has limited application to even his current product line. > IANAL, but his patent application centers on the physical construction of > his early tube reactor construction, and seems to only gloss over the > underlying process. > He cannot patent the Ni-H by itself, because it's prior art. He refused to > divulge the catalyst, so he's unprotected. It's messy, but it is what it is. > > Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Sure, Rossi is basically cornering himself. He could license and protect > >right now his invention, given that patents, unlike trademarks, are > >granted provisional protection from the day it was filed. > > > >2012/2/3 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > > > >> At 05:21 PM 2/3/2012, Randy Wuller wrote: > >> > >>> IAAL, does that stand for "I am a lawyer", anyway, I am not a patent > >>> lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your > >>> intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with > Rossi > >>> is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual > >>> property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers > will > >>> likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a > >>> product. > >>> > >> > >> This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on > an > >> assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that > >> claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for > perpetual > >> motion machines are impossible. > >> > >> However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many > failed > >> cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available. > >> > >> My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to > >> be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if > there > >> is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be > >> claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the > device > >> clearly has the major claimed use. > >> > >> It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still > impossible, > >> but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the > >> USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes > >> used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did > not > >> mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did. > >> > >> It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means "I'm not a > >> lawyer." But I do have some idea of the legal issues. > >> > >> The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The > >> USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or > protection. > >> If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the > >> inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in > court. > >> > >> But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which > >> is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe > he > >> thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe. > >> > >> I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know > >> things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on > less > >> knowledge.... > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Daniel Rocha - RJ > >danieldi...@gmail.com > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
