From: Blaze Spinnaker 6) Randell Mills has been on record for well over one year as saying that “LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is disclosed in my patents.” [filed in Russia and the USA.]
It is likely that Rossi’s disclosure would otherwise fit into the category of a Mills’ reaction, despite the fact that aluminum is one of the few metals BLP does not claim as catalytic. Rossi’s attorneys were negligent not to mention Mills as prior art, and that may come back to haunt them. Ø Yeah, it's a very narrow patent that can only prevent immediate knockoffs and let Rossi claim he has a patent. Until we see a replication though, I remain skeptical. The scenario which is shaping up now is most ironic. The “replication” may come from none other than Randell Mills/ BLP ! It could happen in September. The BLP device could be in a different form factor, but they would be foolish not to become proactive at this juncture. If they have anything to show, it is crunch time. Presumably BLP’s LAH demo, if it happens, will be coordinated by a head-on legal assault by Patent attorneys and politicians. The USPTO has been under pressure from politicians for some time for just this type of intransigence. Mitchell Swartz has a similar problem with them. And now we have a situation where USPTO seem to be favoring a foreign inventor with a long criminal record – in an election season. How hard will it be for Mills to enlist “the Donald” on his side. OMG the Donald gets involved in LENR J Mills has every right to feel slighted by the USPTO since he has invested up to $20 million in attorney fees over the past 25 years to maintain a portfolio with a large number of long running, non-granted applications. This has allowed him to continually improve what he has on file. Moreover, it is very likely that his claim for priority (in the use of LiAlH4) will have been amended onto a patent with a much earlier original filing that Rossi, and the court will have to decide who is the original inventor. Note that having a granted patent does NOT give the patent holder much in the way of legal presumption. The minute that Mills’ attorneys present evidence of prior invention, the burden of proof will have shifted. This is shaping up to be marvelous entertainment, if nothing else. The best part is that Mills/BLP have now been forced to “put up or shut up.” Jones
