Re-send, I got a mail bounce on this message:
The Ni62 amendments to US2009125444 were sent to the patent office in April 2013 while Rossi’s patent US9115913B1 originated as filing in March 2012. US91159B1 does not mention specifically Ni62 in the claims, but instead the general term ‘Nickel’. These claims were not amended to be more specific at a later stage in the patent process, probably for a very good reason. On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 11:41 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mix...@bigpond.com');>> wrote: > In reply to Teslaalset's message of Sat, 3 Oct 2015 20:18:09 +0200: > Hi, > > At that time didn't he still think that the primary reaction was Ni62 + H > => > Cu63? > > If so, then specifying Ni62 explicitly would make sense because Cu63 is > stable. >
