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 French and others have told me.) > 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. > Is that what the examiner said? He should have said there is no experimental proof that nickel can transmute to copper with a process of this nature, so proof must be submitted. Patents are contingent in experimental evidence, not theory. You can violate all the theory you want, as long as you can prove it works. > Ergo, the group that is eventually awarded the LENR patent must prove > that LENR is supported by existing science. > Not according to David French and the other patent experts I have heard from. The only reason an inventor might have to do this would be if they claim that LENR is supported by existing science and they include a specific theory in the patent application to back this up. They should say nothing about theory. The Patent Office cannot bring up the subject. There is only exception to this rule as far as I know. The Patent Office can summarily dismiss applications for perpetual motion machines. That is, for machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics. Some people say the Patent Office should reject all cold fusion applications on this basis. I disagree. I think these devices are predicated on those laws. In any case, as long as the researchers do not claim that cold fusion runs forever without any sort of fuel, they should be in the clear. - Jed
